The grievant, an employee just off probation, was issued a five day suspension for unsatisfactory completion of job duties. The charge included leaving dirty food trays sitting out in the work area. The grievant was ordered to remove the trays. Instead of complying with the directive, the grievant became argumentative. She was issued a five day suspension.

The employer argued that the discipline was appropriate given the grievant's refusal to comply with orders given.

The Union argued an issue of poor communication in that the supervisor did not properly convey a direct order. The Union further argued that, as a new employee, the grievant was not fully trained.

The arbitrator concluded: "inherent in the obligation to follow an order is that the order must be clear and explicit, and the employee must be informed or should otherwise understand that her refusal to comply will likely subject her to a disciplinary penalty. . . there is no refusal to obey an order unless there is first an order commanding obedience. . . Management should make known to the employee what is expected of them. Where management does not do this, the employee cannot reasonably be expected to obey.

"Discipline in the broad sense means orderliness - the opposite of confusion. It is a fundamental requirement for the people working in any workplace just as it is for other segments of society. Unless there is proper discipline, the rights of employees as well as the employer suffer.

"Unfortunately the word 'discipline' has a harsh meaning to some people, which should not be evident in the actual application of the term to employee disciplinary situations. Employee discipline, as the term used and understood, does not mean strict and unfair technical application of rigid rules and regulations. On the contrary, it simply means working, cooperating, and behaving in a normal and orderly way, as any reasonable person would expect to do in a civilized society.

"There are those employees who are generally well meaning and who act within the bounds of acceptable behavior, but who have occasional lapses in good conduct. This poor conduct requires that corrective action be taken with the employee so that unacceptable conduct does not become a chronic problem. A supervisor must take action to counteract misconduct, and it must be done in a manner so that the offender either comes to realize and accept the standard of conduct necessary for his or her continued employment. It then becomes the duty of the offender to demonstrate that he or she will take the necessary steps to correct the deficiency."

The arbitrator did conclude that the grievant was partially responsible. She displayed a sarcastic, flippant and generally intolerant and unaccepting of the efforts of the supervisor to counsel her as to appropriate behavior. She raised her voice, and generally showed improper disrespect toward her supervisor.

The arbitrator reduced the discipline from a five day suspension to a written reprimand.