Question Details

Operation Management Homework

You are the Arbitrator: Facts: The employee, a union shopsteward, was on her regularly scheduled day off at home. She wascalled by her supervisor and told to talk to three union membersand instruct them to attend a work function called a "Quest forQuality Interaction Committee" meeting. The Quest for Qualityprogram was a high priority with the employer for improving patientcare at the facility and was part of a corporate program. The unionhad objected to the implementation of the Quest for Quality programand had taken a position that employees could attend the program iftheir jobs were threatened, but they should do so under protest andthen file a grievance afterward. On the day in question, the unionshop steward, in a three-way phone conversation with the threeemployees, told them that she would not order them to attend theQuest for Quality meeting, although she had been asked by hersupervisor to instruct them to go to the meeting. The supervisorwho had called the union shop steward had herself decided not toorder the employees to attend the meeting but relied on the unionshop steward to issue the order to the employees. When the unionshop steward failed to order the employees to attend the meeting,the employer suspended the union shop steward for two weeks. Thesteward grieved the two-week suspension. The union position wasthat the company had no authority to discipline the union shopsteward on her day off for failure to give what it termed amanagement direction to perform the specific job function ofattending a mandatory corporate meeting. The union pointed out thatit was unfair that the employer refused to order the employeesdirectly to attend the meeting but then expected the union shopsteward to do so. The union argued that, although it is not unusualto call upon a union shop steward for assistance in problemsolving, the company has no right to demand that he or she replacesupervisors or management in giving orders and then discipline theunion official for refusing to do so. The company position was thatthe opposition of the union to the Quest for Quality meetings putthe employees in a position of being unable to attend the meetingswithout direction from the union shop steward, that the union shopsteward was given a job assignment of directing the employees toattend the meeting, and that failure to follow that job assignmentwas insubordination and just 15 cause for her suspension.Nonetheless, the union contended that the arbitrator must examinethe nature of the order when deciding whether the insubordinationwas grounds for discipline. As to the nature of the order in thiscase, the employer had to demonstrate that the order was directlyrelated to the job classification and work assignment of theemployee disciplined. The refusal to obey such an order must beshown to pose a real challenge to the supervisory authority. Theemployee did not dispute the fact that she failed to follow theorders given to her by her supervisor but pointed out that she wasnot on duty at the time and that the task being given to her wasnot because of her job with the company but because of her statusas a union shop steward.

1. As the arbitrator, do you think the employer had just causeto discipline the employee? (You may refer to the "7 tests for justcause).

2. If the union's opposition to the "Quest for Quality" programencouraged the employees not to participate, why shouldn't theunion be held responsible for directing the employees to attend? 3.Are there any real or potential Section 8(a) employer unfair laborpractices in the facts of this case? What type of unfair laborpractice? Discuss.

3. Are there any real or potential Section 8(a) employer unfairlabor practices in the facts of this case? What type of unfairlabor practice? Discuss.