The employer is entitled to prescribe reasonable rules of conduct. The employer enjoys considerable discretion in making this determination. The member has a right to know what is expected of him. Therefore, the employer has an obligation to give adequate notice of the rules, unless they are so self-evident as not to require notice, i.e. Theft, possession/use of drugs, and assault.

The employer must avoid arbitrary, hasty, or capricious action when confronted with unsatisfactory conduct. The tendency for supervisors to overreact against what they regard as a challenge to their authority is one of the persistent problems of workplace discipline. To guard against this tendency, collective bargaining agreements frequently provide that an employee will not be discharged until after a preliminary suspension.

Disciplinary suspension policies should be consistent. It does not mean, however, that a mechanical uniformity of treatment must be achieved, regardless of differences in the background or circumstances of cases. What is important is consistent purposes rather than uniform penalties.

The punishment should fit the crime. There is a controversy among arbitrators as to whether they have authority to mitigate penalties where a member is guilty of the offense charged and the penalty is regarded as excessive. Proper discipline should be corrective rather than punitive. The purpose is to instill self-discipline in the working force. Both employer and our members lose when a member is terminated. The employer must recruit and train a replacement and must often reckon with ill will on the part of the discharged member's fellow workers, while the member loses their seniority and all the valuable rights associated with it. Therefore, discharge should normally be invoked only as a last resort, after it has become clear that corrective measures will fail.