Was there sufficient proof or was management's action based on hearsay?

     Did management investigate and verify the charge before taking action or did it "shoot from the hip" first and investigate after the fact?

     Did management selectively "stack the deck' by overemphasizing certain facts and points while playing down those factors that would favor the grievant?

Did management overreact, that is react drastically and emotionally rather than objectively?

Was the discipline punitive and vindictive rather than corrective and remedial?

Was the discipline timely?

Did it follow the alleged commission or omission within a logical and reasonable time?

Did management wait until an incident occurred before suddenly clamping down?

Was the penalty consistent with the principle of progressive discipline?

     Was the grievant adequately informed as to what level of performance or compliance would be expected of him or her?

     Did the penalty violate any applicable and relevant provision of:

  The contract

 An addendum to the agreement

 A side letter

 A policy

 An administrative directive

 A past practice

 An applicable and relevant arbitration award

 An applicable law?