Coalition of University Employees (CUE)
CUE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2010		 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite #301, Berkeley, CA 94705
 Contact CUE  (510) 845-2221 (phone), (510) 845-7444 (FAX)

CUE:   Home    General Info    Contacts    Issues    News    Bargaining    Member Info    Locals    Events / Corresp    Finance    Stewards / Grievances    CUE Supervisors    Local Resources    General Resources    Links    Site Feedback    Contact CUE  
Stewards / Grievances:   Local Stewards    Workplace Posters    Know Your Rights    Demand To Bargain    Grievance Process    Forms    Timeline    Tactics    PERB Cases  
Know Your Rights:   Union Activities    Right to Info    Layoffs    FMLA    Basic Rights    Weingarten    Worker's Comp    Performance Evals    Personnel Files  

What is Insubordination?

Insubordination

Insubordination is one of a category of charges (others include dishonesty, theft or misappropriation of University property, fighting on the job and other acts endangering others) considered so serious that the University is not required to follow the principals of "progressive discipline" which are outlined in the Corrective Action/Discipline and Dismissal article of the CUE Contract. As such, the charge of "insubordination" presents special problems for stewards whose duty is to ensure that the University follows due process when disciplining or dismissing employees. As with any other case of discipline or dismissal of a regular career employee, the University must have credible evidence that the employee actually engaged in the alleged misconduct. In addition, some general guidelines governing insubordination cases have been arrived at from arbitrators' decision over the years.

Management usually invokes the charge of "insubordination" in one of two kinds of situations, either an instance in which an employee is accused of refusing a direct order from a supervisor; or a confrontation between an employee and a supervisor.

Refusal to Carry Out an Order:

In order to uphold the dismissal of an employee for insubordination, arbitrators usually look for two components, both of which must be present:

  1. a refusal to follow a direct, valid work order -- The order must be clear, it must come from someone authorized to issue directives, and the employee must understand it as an order.

  2. a clear prior warning of the consequences -- The supervisor must clearly state the penalty for continued refusal to carry out the order. An employees' failure (as opposed to refusal) to carry out an order, or protest while carrying out the order, may justify a lesser charge than insubordination and, consequently, a lesser form of discipline, but would not, by itself, constitute insubordination.

The general rule for employees who are confronted with a work order they believe is objectionable, unfair, improper, illegal or a violation of the union contract is: "work now, grieve later." There are some exceptions to this rule, such as when an employee has a reasonable belief that carrying out the work order will endanger the health or safety of him/her self or others.

Abusive Language:

Employees may be subject to discipline for using profane or abusive language, though it may not necessarily warrant a charge of insubordination or result in dismissal of the employee. Arbitrators often look at the prevailing standards within the workplace ("shop talk") for some guidance on whether an employee's use of objectionable or insulting language is grounds for dismissal. It may be a mitigating circumstance in the accused employee's favor if, for example, a supervisor generally tolerates profanity in the workplace, makes use of it himself or herself, or provoked the employee through inappropriate conduct.

On the other hand, arbitrators also consider whether other employees are present when an employee uses profane or abusive language, particularly when it may undermine the authority of management or the morale of other employees. Employees are more likely to be accused of insubordination, and arbitrators are more likely to uphold such charges if other employees are present or otherwise made aware of an employee's attempt to embarrass, ridicule or degrade a supervisor. The following circumstances may result in a charge of insubordination:

Disrespectful Attitude:

Grumbling or "back talk" (without a clear refusal to carry out orders) may subject an employee to discipline, and, may, eventually, lead to a charge of insubordination, but, by itself, is not enough to justify that charge or to result in immediate dismissal. Management should still provide the employee with a clear prior warning that discipline will result if the allegedly disrespectful behavior is continued. Other facts, such as the presence of other employees, a supervisor's provocative behavior, may serve as mitigating circumstances either against, or in favor of, the accused employee (see above).

Union Stewardship:

An important area of exceptions to the rules governing insubordination cases is the matter of union stewards or representatives. When acting in one's capacity as a steward, an employee is management's equal and has much more leeway to engage in behavior that otherwise would constitute insubordination. This does not give the steward unrestricted rights to act in defiance of management. However, it does give stewards the right, if acting in good faith, to refuse to obey orders they believe violate the contract, especially when such orders would prohibit stewards from performing their duties to investigate grievances, to enforce the contract or to otherwise carry out the union's duties of representation.

http://www.cueunion.org/general_info/insub.php        04-February-2012 14:42:03
Copyright © 2011 CUE UNION.  All Rights Reserved.