NCJ Number
95965
Journal
Labor Law Journal Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Dated: (February 1984) Pages: 112-122
Date Published
1984
Length
11 pages
Annotation
The discussion addresses three issues: the nature of the quasi-judicial body of law developed by arbitrators to address employee insubordination, the definition of insubordination, and appropriate penalties for insubordination.
Abstract
Reflecting management's concern to maintain discipline and order, employee insubordination apparently is not explicitly prohibited or, where it is prohibited, tends to merit discharge for the first offense. If management has an inherent right to manage, as a majority of arbitrators think it has, such a right carries corollary responsibilities. The relevant responsibility is to act, to direct, and to order. The emerging principle derives from a balancing of employee and management interests. The principle is that insubordination is a deliberate, willful refusal to obey a proper order and, having been put on notice that continuing refusal will prompt discipline, discipline is appropriate, up to and including discharge. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances must be considered and weighed. Even in the absence of clear contract language or explicit company rules, the severity of discipline for insubordination will likely be management's decision. Management often fails to recognize degrees of insubordination, however. Examples of degrees of insubordination are included.