2,261
edits
Chapter 1 DefVsDisc2016: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
disciplinary action. Discipline should not be issued if “No” is the answer to any of the | disciplinary action. Discipline should not be issued if “No” is the answer to any of the | ||
questions. | questions. | ||
</br></br> | |||
The following is the list of six sub-questions: | The following is the list of six sub-questions: | ||
<ol style="list-style-type:decimal"> | <ol style="list-style-type:decimal"> | ||
<b><li>Is there a rule? If so, was the employee aware of the rule? Was the employee forewarned of the disciplinary consequences for failure to follow the rule?</b></br></br> | </br><b><li>Is there a rule? If so, was the employee aware of the rule? Was the employee forewarned of the disciplinary consequences for failure to follow the rule?</b></br></br> | ||
It is not enough to say, “Well, everybody knows that rule,” or, “We posted that rule ten years ago.” You should be prepared to present the document(s) that supports that the employee knew, or reasonably should have known, the rule (posting and location, previous discipline, relevant sections of handbooks, regulations, etc.)</br></br> | It is not enough to say, “Well, everybody knows that rule,” or, “We posted that rule ten years ago.” You should be prepared to present the document(s) that supports that the employee knew, or reasonably should have known, the rule (posting and location, previous discipline, relevant sections of handbooks, regulations, etc.)</br></br> | ||
Certain standards of conduct are normally expected in the work place, and it is assumed by arbitrators that employees should be aware of these standards. For example, an employee charged with intoxication on duty, fighting on duty, pilferage, sabotage, or insubordination, may generally be assumed to have understood that these offenses are neither condoned nor acceptable, regardless of whether management has issued specific regulations to that effect.</li> | Certain standards of conduct are normally expected in the work place, and it is assumed by arbitrators that employees should be aware of these standards. For example, an employee charged with intoxication on duty, fighting on duty, pilferage, sabotage, or insubordination, may generally be assumed to have understood that these offenses are neither condoned nor acceptable, regardless of whether management has issued specific regulations to that effect.</li> | ||
<b><li>Is the rule a reasonable rule?</b></br></br> | </br><b><li>Is the rule a reasonable rule?</b></br></br> | ||
Management must make sure rules are reasonable, based on the overall objective of safe and efficient work performance. Rules should be reasonably related to business efficiency, safe operation of our business, and the performance we might expect of the employee.</li | Management must make sure rules are reasonable, based on the overall objective of safe and efficient work performance. Rules should be reasonably related to business efficiency, safe operation of our business, and the performance we might expect of the employee.</li> | ||
</br><b><li>Is the rule consistently and equitably enforced?</b> | |||
A rule must be applied fairly and without discrimination. Consistent and equitable | A rule must be applied fairly and without discrimination. Consistent and equitable enforcement is a critical factor. Consistently overlooking employee infractions and then disciplining without warning is improper. For example, if employees are consistently allowed to smoke in areas designated as No Smoking areas, it is not appropriate to suddenly start disciplining them for this violation. In such cases, management loses its right to discipline for that infraction, in effect, unless it first puts employees (and the unions, when appropriate) on notice of its intent to enforce that regulation.</br></br> | ||
enforcement is a critical factor. Consistently overlooking employee infractions and | |||
then disciplining without warning is improper. For example, if employees are | |||
employees (and the unions, when appropriate) on notice of its intent to enforce | |||
that regulation. | |||
Singling out employees for discipline is another issue. If several similarly situated | Singling out employees for discipline is another issue. If several similarly situated | ||
employees commit an offense, it would not be equitable to discipline only one. | employees commit an offense, it would not be equitable to discipline only one.</li> | ||
</br><b><li>Was a thorough investigation completed?</b></br> | |||
When considering disciplinary action, management must investigate to determine | When considering disciplinary action, management must investigate to determine whether the employee committed the offense. Management must ensure that its investigation is thorough and objective. This includes the employee’s “day in court privilege.” Employees have the right to know with reasonable detail what the charges are and need to be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves before the discipline is initiated.</br></br> | ||
whether the employee committed the offense. Management must ensure that its | The investigation should also include a review of the employees past record in order to determine what, if any, action is appropriate and/or warranted. When in doubt supervisors are encouraged to consult with their managers or with the District Labor Relations office.</li> | ||
investigation is thorough and objective. This includes the employee’s “day in court | </br><b><li>Was the severity of the discipline reasonably related to the infraction itself | ||
privilege.” Employees have the right to know with reasonable detail what the | |||
charges are and need to be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves | |||
before the discipline is initiated. | |||
The investigation should also include a review of the employees past record in | |||
doubt supervisors are encouraged to consult with their managers or with the | |||
and in line with that usually administered, as well as to the seriousness of the | and in line with that usually administered, as well as to the seriousness of the | ||
employee’s past record? | employee’s past record?</b> | ||
The following is an example of what arbitrators may consider an inequitable | The following is an example of what arbitrators may consider an inequitable | ||
discipline: If an installation consistently issues seven-day suspensions for a particu- | discipline: If an installation consistently issues seven-day suspensions for a particu- | ||
| Line 63: | Line 49: | ||
Reasonable judgment must be used. An employee’s record of previous offenses | Reasonable judgment must be used. An employee’s record of previous offenses | ||
may not be used to establish guilt in a case you presently have under considera- | may not be used to establish guilt in a case you presently have under considera- | ||
tion, but it may be used to determine the appropriate disciplinary penalty. | tion, but it may be used to determine the appropriate disciplinary penalty.</li> | ||
</br><b><li>Was the disciplinary action taken in a timely manner?</b> | |||
Disciplinary actions should be taken as promptly as possible after the offense has | Disciplinary actions should be taken as promptly as possible after the offense has | ||
been committed. | been committed.</li> | ||
The Daugherty ‘Tests’ of Just Cause | </ol> | ||
---- | |||
<b><u>The Daugherty ‘Tests’ of Just Cause</b></u> | |||
The definition of Just Cause stated in the EL-921 is based upon the benchmark definition | The definition of Just Cause stated in the EL-921 is based upon the benchmark definition | ||
developed and first stated by Arbitrator Carroll R. Daugherty in the Grief Brothers Coop- | developed and first stated by Arbitrator Carroll R. Daugherty in the Grief Brothers Coop- | ||