From the Opinion of the Arbitrator: The evidence indicates that the Grievant [A___] was away from his own work area on his coffee break, standing with a can of hot water in one hand and a cup in the other when the Supervisor, B___, approached him for the clerical information in question. It was 8:50 am, a period when an employee would reasonably be on a coffee break. Mr. B___ believed that he needed additional information in order to price a ticket for a hose clamp.

However, the record indicates that there was sufficient information on the card for an informed person to find the price for the clamp. The Foreman pressed A___ for the information, and A___, refusing to give information on the ticket, told the Foreman not to jump all over him or he would tell him to stick the tickets.... The Foreman at that time did not take this individual off his coffee break, ... nor did he advise him to give him the information after his break, but pressed on for the information. The Grievant then advised the Foreman to see the Group Leader for the information.

The Foreman again pressed for the information and was told to see the Group Leader and stick the tickets.... Mr. B___ again sought the information and asked him to come in to his office to discuss the matter in private; the Grievant said he would not do so because he was on his coffee break. At that point Mr. B___ offered to leave the tickets with A___ to give him information after his coffee break; and A___ refused the tickets saying "stick them...." The Union contends that Mr. B___ provoked the incident by asking for ridiculous information at a time when A___ was on a coffee break. I find that Mr. B___ honestly believed that he needed the information to properly price the clamp. And, I find that Mr. B___ did not set out to provoke an incident with the Grievant.

The Union contends that the Grievant was not refusing a legitimate work order because he was in a non-working period on his coffee break. The Grievant, a shop steward, should have known very well that he could have challenged the Foreman's action in seeking information while an employee was on a coffee break by filing a grievance. The Foreman's directive was not in the category of those extenuating circumstances, such as a hazard to the employee's health or requiring an employee to do an illegal act, which would allow an employee to refuse an order. The Grievant had an obligation to respond to his foreman's directive and had the right to file a grievance concerning the propriety of the directive.

The Company's Union Relations Officer, the individual who made the determination that the Grievant was guilty of the charges and assessed the suspension, identified the factors he took into consideration in reaching his determination.... He did not consider the fact that A___ was on a coffee break to be an extenuating circumstance: I find that a fair and just appraisal of the incident required that the Company consider the fact that the Grievant was on his coffee break, on non-working time.

The information sought was not of pressing importance. And ... the Foreman's handling of the matter while not provocation was not without error in that he continuously pressed for the information while the Grievant stood with a coffee cup and a can of hot water in his hands and did not initially inform the Grievant that the matter could be handled after the coffee break, or advise the Grievant his coffee break should be delayed until the information was obtained. The Grievant did, in fact, clearly violate the work rules in question. The "work now grieve later" principle should have been well-known to him as a shop steward. And, with recent previous discipline for insubordination, the gravity of the situation should have been very clear to him.

To the contrary, the Grievant chose to openly challenge Mr. B___'s authority by his refusal to give information, either during or after his coffee break; and such is insubordination. And, the language used to his supervisor in refusing the directive was clearly abusive and intolerable.* I find that the discipline of a four-week suspension should be reduced to a three-week suspension to reflect the extenuating circumstances discussed above. I find that there was just cause for a disciplinary suspension of three weeks....

Case Questions

1. What is the source of the arbitrator's authority?

2. What is the rationale for the "work now grieve later" principle?

3. Based on the facts, could the disciplined employee have brought a successful Section 8(a) (3) charge against the employer?