Discipline Rights
This
page is dedicated to the facts
and rights of handling
disciplinary
situations. The
Associated Fire Fighters of
Illinois has put together a few
cases and issues to assist if
there are questions about
discipline.
____________________________________________________________
Just Cause
A basic principle in discipline
cases is that management must
have “just cause”
to impose the
discipline. Arbitrators’
decisions over the years have
resulted in a
kind of measuring
stick
--
known as the “Seven
Tests of Just Cause’
--
that can
be applied to
discipline cases. The just cause
standard is contained in the
following seven questions:
1. Was the employee adequately
warned of the probable
consequences of the employee’s
conduct?
2. Was the employer’s rule or
order reasonably related to the
efficient and safe operation of
the job function?
3. Did management investigate
before administering the
discipline?
4. Was management’s
investigation fair and
objective?
5. Did the investigation produce
substantial evidence or proof
that the employee was guilty of
the offense?
6. Has the employer applied its
rules, orders and
penalties evenly and without
discrimination?
7. Was the amount of discipline
reasonably related to the
seriousness of the
offense and
the employee’s past service and
record? (Did the “punishment fit
the crime?) If the answer to one or
more of these questions is “no,”
the union can argue that
management did not have just
cause to take the disciplinary
action.
Click on this link Weingarten Rights to read the PDF file.
In summary,
Weingarten means that an
employee may be represented by
the union at an investigatory
interview with his or her
supervisor when the employee
reasonably believes that the
interview may lead to a
disciplinary
action.
Click on this link Garrity Rights to read the PDF file.
In summary, Garrity is the right of a law enforcement officer to be free from compulsory self-incrimination.
Click on this link Discipline Rights to read the PDF file.
A top 10 List of Rights compiled by Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois Legal Counsel J. Dale Berry.
Click on this link
Loudermill Rights
A U.S. Supreme Court decision somewhat similar to Weingarten occurred in 1985, with the case of Cleveland Board of Education vs. Loudermill. This decision established what have come to be called "Loudermill Rights" for public employees.
Loudermill Rights apply to incidents of involuntary termination.
Prior to being terminated, "the...tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him (or her), an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his (or her) side of the story."
Unlike Weingarten, the employer has an obligation to inform the employees of his/her Loudermill Rights.
The employee has the right to speak or not to speak at the Loudermill (or "pre-disciplinary") hearing. Also, the employee has a right to union representation, and the union representative may speak on behalf of the employee.
If the employee chooses not to attend the Loudermill (or "pre-disciplinary") hearing, the employer may proceed with termination.
