Seven Standards

Standards often used by arbitrators in discipline cases

Download PDF

The issue before the arbitrator frequently requires findings in respect to the existence of nonexistence of  "just-cause" for discipline, including discharge.  Few union-management agreements contain a definition of "just-cause."

Nevertheless, over the years the opinions of arbitrators in innumerable discipline cases have developed a sort of  "common law" definition. This definition consists of a set of guidelines or criteria that are to be applied to the facts of any one case, and the criteria are set forth below in the form of questions.

A flat "no" answer to any one or more of the following questions normally indicates that just and proper cause did not exist. In other words, a "no" means that the employer's disciplinary decision contained one or more elements of arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or discriminatory action to such an extent that the decision constituted an abuse of managerial discretion warranting the arbitrator to substitute his judgment for that of the employer.

The answers to the questions in any particular case are to be found in the evidence presented to the arbitrator at the hearing. Frequently, of course, the facts are such that the guidelines cannot be applied with precision. 

Moreover, occasionally, in some particular case an arbitrator may find one or more “no” answers so weak, and the other “yes” answers so strong, that he may properly, without any “political” or spineless intent to “split the difference” between the opposing positions of the parties, find that the correct decision is to “chastise" both the company and the disciplined employee by decreasing but not nullifying the degree of discipline imposed by the company – e.g., by reinstating a discharged employee without back pay.

See Related

AFSCME Steward Handbook

Types of Stewards

Selection

Certification

Training

Committees

Incentives