Grievant was issued three suspensions that included two one-day suspensions and a three day suspension for failure to follow procedures. The issues were combined for the purposes of one hearing. The Union argued that each of the disciplines was issued without just cause.

The Arbitrator opined that the collective bargaining agreement requires that discipline and discharge be instituted for just cause.' "The cause, just cause, proper cause standard has been utilized by the parties to collective bargaining agreements for decades to establish a criteria which must be met before discipline can be sustained. Absent a specific definition of just cause in the collective bargaining agreement and I have found none, nor have I been directed to any, I interpret the term to mean that when judged in light of all the circumstances, the employer's actions must be reasonable. This means that not only must the employer establish conduct, which it may respond to, but it must also show that its response is appropriate... If management's actions are arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or just plain excessive or unfair, then an arbitrator must intervene."

The Arbitrator ruled that the employer had not proven that the grievant violated any procedure in the first suspension. The first suspension was rescinded.

Likewise, the Arbitrator concluded, in the second grievance, that an analysis of the facts did not conclude that the grievant was insubordinate or intentionally interfered with the smooth operations of the department.

The second grievance was granted to the Union.
In the third grievance, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievant did refuse to work overtime on the day in question, did participate in a verbal altercation with the Supervisor, and concluded that there was no dispute relative to the underlying circumstances. The Arbitrator concluded that insubordination was present. "Classically, insubordination is a refusal of an employee to follow an understood appropriate order. Additionally, insubordination is also defined as an employee showing disregard for authority. In other words, a subordinate cannot swear at his/her superior, call him/her names, or, as the grievant did in this case, state that the supervisor was acting like or talking like a 'moron.' This type of action establishes insubordination." He concluded that the employer had carried its burden of proof in establishing conduct that it may respond to. The third discipline was sustained based upon the grievant's confrontation with the supervisor.