|
A
3613-1496-99 - Ecorse Board of Education
|
|
| Issue: | 3-day suspension for insubordination. |
| Result: | The
grievant, an employee of 27 years service, was issued a three-day suspension
for insubordination. The grievant was issued a memo requesting that he damp
mop the teacher's lounge. He responded that he was insulted that his supervisor
felt he had to be instructed in how to do his job. The supervisor felt threatened
and issued the discipline for insubordination. The arbitrator cited the six qualifications for insubordinate behavior as follows: 1. The grievant did not refuse to obey an order or to do the work. His behavior demonstrated his disagreement (or grumbling) about the efficacy of following the order of the supervisor by an employee with 27 years of experience. 2. The order was clearly and explicitly given to the grievant by the supervisor. 3. There was no showing that the order was not work related or reasonable. The circumstances involved in this situation were that of frustration caused by a condition outside the control of either the supervisor or grievant due to the condition of the floor in the teachers lounge caused by an on-going construction remodeling project. 4. There was no question that the supervisor had the authority to give the directive to the grievant and that the grievant was aware of this authority. 5. The consequences, as explained by the supervisor, were that if the grievant did not damp mop the floor, he would be disciplined. There was no showing that the grievant did not damp mop the floor. 6. There was no showing that the grievant did not do as he was instructed by the supervisor. The arbitrator determined that special circumstances in this case involve a situation of long term employees with long terms of co-employment, where one of them had recently been appointed supervisor of the other. He concluded that the newly appointed supervisor may have been focusing on this incident as an opportunity to demonstrate his authority over the grievant as well as the other employees under his supervision. He further concluded that the grievant had never verbally or actually refused to do as instructed and therefore, could not be found guilty of insubordination, but is found guilty of demonstrating a somewhat uncooperative attitude. The arbitrator ruled that "An arbitrator has the duty under the standard of just cause to insure that the penalty imposed for any given offense by the employer is appropriate in light of all the circumstance. This authority to modify the penalty is inherent in the arbitrator's position, coupled with the standard of just cause. The arbitrator must take into consideration whether the penalty is reasonable and not excessive, capricious or discriminatory. Unless an offense is especially egregious, progressive discipline is required for some minor forms of insubordination as well as other 'correctable' offenses under the standard of just cause. Among the factors to be considered are the length of service with the employer and the past work record of the employee." Based upon the above, the three-day suspension was reduced to a written reprimand and the grievant was to be paid as if he had worked three regular days during the time he served his suspension. |
[ Back ]