Insubordination can cover a wide range of behaviour, from employees who are unpleasant and unco-operative to those who flout company rules at every opportunity. Insubordinate behaviour also includes workers who engage in verbal abuse and physical aggression and those who willfully disobey their supervisors’ directions. HR practitioners can play a role in helping organizations avoid problems with insubordinate workers. Instituting clear company policies against such behaviour and helping supervisors and managers handle employees who are behaving in an insubordinate manner can go a long way to prevent this problem from spinning out of control and ending up before a judge or adjudicator.
How Saskatchewan’s public sector handles insubordination
www.gov.sk.ca/psc/hrmanual/appendices/ps803-ge.pdf
The Saskatchewan Public Service Commission sets out its corrective discipline guidelines on insubordination to assist managers and supervisors as part of its HR manual. This PDF document gives the commission’s definition of insubordination as “the refusal of an employee to carry out the order of a supervisor.” If the employee disagrees with the order, the proper response is to “seek redress via grievance action.” It goes on to list several exceptions to that rule, including illegal orders or endangerment to health and safety. The second half of the document describes how to deal with insubordination and suggests the approach supervisors should take when employees refuse to follow orders.
Repeated misbehaviour justifies dismissal
www.filion.on.ca/pdf/caselaws/Daniels.pdf
What does it take to fire an employee for insubordination? In this PDF document, law firm Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP details the reasoning behind the 2003 court case Daniels v. Canadian Gift and Tableware Association, in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an employee’s action for wrongful dismissal. The article says that the “cumulative effect of her repeated instances of insubordination was ‘overwhelming’ and warranted dismissal.” The court found that the employee committed several acts of insubordination, including attempts to bypass her immediate supervisor, acting without authority and undermining staff confidence by spreading false rumours about management. According to the article, the court held that by spreading false rumours in this case, the employee had engaged in a “final culminating act of misconduct.”
Federal public-sector decisions
www.pslrbcrtfp.gc.ca/decisions/topicalindex/IndexTermDetail_e.asp?TIID=167
The Canadian Public Service Labour Relations Board site provides links to adjudication decisions that have been made involving the issue of insubordination. There are several examples of employees accused of insubordination, how the incidents were handled by their employers and what punishments were handed out. The long list of insubordination-related issues include employee attitudes, aggressive behaviour towards a supervisor, refusal to work, double jeopardy, annual leave, and failure to report to work. In one decision, R. Ferguson and Treasury Board, a guard at a medium-security prison was accused of using abusive language towards his manager. In this case the grievance was denied, with the adjudicator noting that “although the use of profanity in a setting such as a federal prison is not uncommon, using it towards a superior officer while on duty is unacceptable.”
Defining and dealing with insubordination
www.hrtools.com/HREssentials/P05_5330.asp
This page from the CCH Business Owner’s Toolkit describes what constitutes insubordination in the workplace and how to deal with it when it happens. It suggests that having a general policy in place is useful in case the company has to defend its actions in court. The page also provides a link to general work rules that will “make it clear to employees what kind of behavior you expect.” Other links include questions to ask before reacting to insubordinate behaviour, how to deal with an insubordinate employee and how to create an insubordination policy. In discussing cases in which abusive language has been used, it’s suggested that the context in which the incident occurred must be considered. “An employee is more likely to be found to have engaged in insubordination if the abusive language was not provoked by the supervisor, was spoken in the presence of other employees or customers and was not an example of shop talk in the workplace.”
Ann Macaulay is a freelance editor and regular contributor to Canadian HR Reporter. Her Web Sight column appears regularly in the CloseUp section.
How Saskatchewan’s public sector handles insubordination
www.gov.sk.ca/psc/hrmanual/appendices/ps803-ge.pdf
The Saskatchewan Public Service Commission sets out its corrective discipline guidelines on insubordination to assist managers and supervisors as part of its HR manual. This PDF document gives the commission’s definition of insubordination as “the refusal of an employee to carry out the order of a supervisor.” If the employee disagrees with the order, the proper response is to “seek redress via grievance action.” It goes on to list several exceptions to that rule, including illegal orders or endangerment to health and safety. The second half of the document describes how to deal with insubordination and suggests the approach supervisors should take when employees refuse to follow orders.
Repeated misbehaviour justifies dismissal
www.filion.on.ca/pdf/caselaws/Daniels.pdf
What does it take to fire an employee for insubordination? In this PDF document, law firm Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP details the reasoning behind the 2003 court case Daniels v. Canadian Gift and Tableware Association, in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an employee’s action for wrongful dismissal. The article says that the “cumulative effect of her repeated instances of insubordination was ‘overwhelming’ and warranted dismissal.” The court found that the employee committed several acts of insubordination, including attempts to bypass her immediate supervisor, acting without authority and undermining staff confidence by spreading false rumours about management. According to the article, the court held that by spreading false rumours in this case, the employee had engaged in a “final culminating act of misconduct.”
Federal public-sector decisions
www.pslrbcrtfp.gc.ca/decisions/topicalindex/IndexTermDetail_e.asp?TIID=167
The Canadian Public Service Labour Relations Board site provides links to adjudication decisions that have been made involving the issue of insubordination. There are several examples of employees accused of insubordination, how the incidents were handled by their employers and what punishments were handed out. The long list of insubordination-related issues include employee attitudes, aggressive behaviour towards a supervisor, refusal to work, double jeopardy, annual leave, and failure to report to work. In one decision, R. Ferguson and Treasury Board, a guard at a medium-security prison was accused of using abusive language towards his manager. In this case the grievance was denied, with the adjudicator noting that “although the use of profanity in a setting such as a federal prison is not uncommon, using it towards a superior officer while on duty is unacceptable.”
Defining and dealing with insubordination
www.hrtools.com/HREssentials/P05_5330.asp
This page from the CCH Business Owner’s Toolkit describes what constitutes insubordination in the workplace and how to deal with it when it happens. It suggests that having a general policy in place is useful in case the company has to defend its actions in court. The page also provides a link to general work rules that will “make it clear to employees what kind of behavior you expect.” Other links include questions to ask before reacting to insubordinate behaviour, how to deal with an insubordinate employee and how to create an insubordination policy. In discussing cases in which abusive language has been used, it’s suggested that the context in which the incident occurred must be considered. “An employee is more likely to be found to have engaged in insubordination if the abusive language was not provoked by the supervisor, was spoken in the presence of other employees or customers and was not an example of shop talk in the workplace.”
Ann Macaulay is a freelance editor and regular contributor to Canadian HR Reporter. Her Web Sight column appears regularly in the CloseUp section.
