Insubordination generally means an employee’s knowing refusal to obey a supervisor’s order. Arbitrators often examine several factors to determine whether the employer’s order was reasonable and whether the employee’s response justified an insubordination charge, which is considered a very serious offense.

First, the supervisor must give a clear order. The instruction must be specific, direct, and not reasonably open to multiple interpretations. The employee must understand, or reasonably be expected to understand, what is being required. For example, an insubordination charge may fail if language barriers prevented the employee from understanding the order or if the order is framed as a suggestion.

Second, the order must be reasonable under the circumstances. Arbitrators may reject an insubordination charge if the underlying directive was unsafe, unlawful, or otherwise unreasonable. For example, an order broadly prohibiting employees from sitting during a shift may be found unreasonable depending on the facts.

Third, the employee must knowingly and willfully refuse to comply. A mistaken or accidental failure to follow an instruction is not usually considered insubordination. However, the employee does not need to expressly say, “I will not.” Refusal can be shown through conduct, including inaction.

Fourth, the employee should be warned of the consequences of noncompliance. If discharge or serious discipline may result, the employer is in a stronger position when they clearly warn the employee of the consequences of their actions before imposing discipline.

Fifth, the employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply. Even after an initial refusal, the employee needs time to follow the order. The employer’s case is weakened if it disciplines before giving the employee a real chance to comply with the order, especially when the order requires non-immediate action.

If these factors are met, the employee may be found insubordinate, but insubordination does not automatically establish just cause. Arbitrators still consider proportionality, the employee’s record, the seriousness of the refusal, and any mitigating circumstances.