Has the employer applied its rules, orders, and penalties even-handedly and without discrimination to all employees?

• A "no" answer to this question requires a finding of discrimination and warrants a modification of the discipline, usually because of disparate treatment.
• If the employer has been lax in enforcing its rules and orders, and decides thereafter to apply them rigorously, the employer may avoid a finding of discrimination by warning all employees beforehand of its intent to begin enforcing said rules.

Was the degree of discipline administered by the employer reasonably related to: (a) the seriousness of member's proven offense, and (b) the member's record during his service with the employer?

• A trivial proven offense does not merit harsh discipline unless the member has properly been found guilty of the same or other offenses a number of times in the past. There is no rule as to what number of previous offenses constitutes a "good," a "fair," or a "bad" record. Reasonable judgment must be used. Remember, MDOC's disciplinary grid states you may be discharged after your fourth or fifth offense, regardless of the severity.
• A member's record of previous offenses may never be used to discover whether he was guilty of the immediate or latest offense. The only proper use of their past record is in determining the severity of discipline after they have been found guilty of the immediate offense.
• Given the same proven offense for two or more employees, their respective records provide the only proper basis for "discriminating" among them in the administration of discipline for that offense. If employee A's record is significantly better than those of employees B, C and D, the employer may properly give a lighter punishment than it gives the others for the same offense. This does not constitute discrimination or disparate treatment.

A "no" answer to any one or more of the above questions normally signifies that just and proper cause did not exist. In other words, the employer's disciplinary decision contained elements of arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or discriminatory action to such an extent that the decision constituted an abuse of managerial discretion warranting the Arbitrator to substitute his judgment for that of the employer.