Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Preview Page

In establishing systems of industrial jurisprudence through the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements, unions have imposed a number of restrictions on the heretofore unqualified freedom of action enjoyed by employers vis-a-vis their workers. One of the most important of these restrictions has been in the area of discipline—or, more specifically, discharge. An employer who is a party to a contractual relationship with a representative of his employees may no longer fire a man for any reason whatsoever; his actions must, according to the words of most agreements, be for "just cause." The phrase "just cause," of course, is a vague and elusive notion, and requires interpretation on a case-by-case basis in order to clarify and solidify the agreement. Accordingly, arbitrators are often called upon to determine whether a discharge under a given set of circumstances was warranted.

An examination of decisions in all types of discharge cases would be far beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, one particular group of discharge cases has been singled out for consideration, one which points up the very heart of the employer-employee relationship. This group includes cases involving discharge on the grounds of alleged employee disloyalty to his employer. The reader may at once question whether the word "disloyalty" is more edifying than "just cause." Indeed, one of the primary objectives of this paper will be to ascertain the nature of "disloyalty." What are the obligations of the employment relationship for the worker beyond the simple perfomiance of the services for which he is paid? What may an employer reasonably "expect" from his employees? Finally, and most important for our purposes, how have arbitrators tried to answer these questions?