AAmech said:
If this story is true and Dan really did defy his supervisors instructions to ditch the shirt, I'd say he's in deep do-do! Anyone with Union experience knows insubordination is a tough one to beat. Arbitrators take a very dim view of it and have the opionion that "the work place is not a debating society". If this was an issue of saftey or he was told to do something illegal he'd be on solid ground, but a SHIRT? He's screwed himself on this one!
When the company allowed the union to distribute, and the workers to wear shirts promoting the union, which the shirt in question certainly did, then they in effect allowed the wearing of clothes that reflect a union-political message. Dans comments which include a sample of the concessions along with the phrase "you decide" was just that. It was if anything a very subtle, or at least as subtle as those concessions could be made, message. This is completely different than the "piss on AMFA shirts which when literally interpreted promoted a provacative act.
While the general rule of thumb is obey then grieve, that really pertains to work assignments. This does not appear to be the case here. Here the company objected to a truthful statement that reflected conditions that the company actively sought. If the wearing of that t-shirt, would cause some physical impedance to Dan accomplishing his assigned task, and the company made the same requirement concerning all t-shirts then the company would have a case. The "obey then grieve" rule falls under the stipulation of reasonablenesss of the directive and its relation to the business of the company. In other words they could not order Dan to walk around in his underwear, wear a dunce cap, or some other rediculous unreasonable act that does not pertain to accomplishing work related tasks.
People can refuse to do things that are unreasonable, they can be unreasonable without being illegal. THe thing is that you have to make sure that what the company is asking is indeed unreasonable in that it does not pertain to your doing work. Illegality or safety are not the only conditions that would win against insubordination, they are simply the most obvious.
Another problem in this case with the "obey then grieve" rule is the fact that this is all occuring during a period where the TWU is being challenged. The company has exposed itself to charges of taking actions interfering with the union election. Clearly the comment was directled at the union and clearly the company is trying to shield the union from such comments. By allowing the union to promote itself during this period they must allow at least the same means of expressing an opposing view.
The "obey then grieve" rule really applies to situations where employees are told to do assignments that may not be a part of the normal duty within their classification, for instance if a mechanic was told to deliver a part to the gate. A stores function. The mechanic would have to do the job, then the union would grieve the infraction and get the stores guy paid. Clearly the directive had a purpose that related to the operation. The shirt situation does not apply. Our subordination to the company has limits.
Your opinion here is simply another reason why we should get rid of the TWU. A union that claims that the refusal of any act, unless it is unsafe or against the law, constitutes insubordination is not the type of union that we need. It is another example of how the TWU is a "Company Union". "They can do that". The fact is these conditions (refusal to do illegal or unsafe assignments) apply to non-union workers also. Even most "at will" workers can sue their employer if terminated for not complying with illegal or unsafe assignments.
