1. What is the source of the arbitrator’s authority?
2. What is the rationale for the “work now grieve later” principle?
3. Based on the facts, could the disciplined employee have brought a successful Section 8(a) (3) charge against the employer?

From the Opinion of the Arbitrator:
The evidence indicates that the Grievant [A___] was away from his own work area on his coffee break, standing with a can of hot water in one hand and a cup in the other when the Supervisor, B___, approached him for the clerical information in question. It was 8:50 am, a period when an employee would reasonably be on a coffee break. Mr. B___ believed that he needed additional information in order to price a ticket for a hose clamp. However, the record indicates that there was sufficient information on the card for an informed person to find the price for the clamp. The Foreman pressed A___ for the information, and A___, refusing to give information on the ticket, told the Foreman not to jump all over him or he would tell him to stick the tickets….
The Foreman at that time did not take this individual off his coffee break, … nor did he advise him to give him the information after his break, but pressed on for the information. The Grievant then advised the Foreman to see the Group Leader for the information. The Foreman again pressed for the information and was told to see the Group Leader and stick the tickets…. Mr. B___ again sought the information and asked him to come in to his office to discuss the matter in private; the Grievant said he would not do so because he was on his coffee break. At that point Mr. B___ offered to leave the tickets with A___ to give him information after his coffee break; and A___ refused the tickets saying "stick them…."
The Union contends that Mr. B___ provoked the incident by asking for ridiculous information at a time when A___ was on a coffee break. I find that Mr. B___ honestly believed that he needed the information to properly price the clamp. And, I find that Mr. B___ did not set out to provoke an incident with the Grievant.
The Union contends that the Grievant was not refusing a legitimate work order because he was in a non-working period on his coffee break.
The Grievant, a shop steward, should have known very well that he could have challenged the Foreman's action in seeking information while an employee was on a coffee break by filing a grievance. The Foreman's directive was not in the category of those extenuating circumstances, such as a hazard to the employee's health or requiring an employee to do an illegal act, which would allow an employee to refuse an order. The Grievant had an obligation to respond to his foreman's directive and had the right to file a grievance concerning the propriety of the directive.