Just Cause

A set of standards that must be met to justify the disciplining or dismissal of an employee.

Notice-Did the nurse know what would happen if the nurse broke the rule?

There has to be a warning, including saying what will happen if the rule is broken. (Is the rule relevant, updated or published?)
It can be announced or in writing. (Evidence that the nurse was notified, aware and understands)
A boss putting up with something for a long time and then suddenly punishes someone for breaking the rule is NOT usually considered reasonable. (How long without enforcement, time of prior notice, others disciplined-when/who?)
Some rules are so obvious that workers are expected to know that they will be in big trouble even without a warning from the boss (such as drinking at work, stealing, or refusing direct orders).

Reasonable Rule or Work Order-Is the rule important to safe and efficient operations?

The more important a rule is, the more reasonable it is to discipline a worker for breaking it.
(Is rule straightforward, easily understandable? Is rule consistently unbiasedly applied?)

Sufficient Investigation-Did management investigate before disciplining the worker?

When management disciplines a worker and THEN investigates, it looks like they are looking for information to explain what they already did. (Did the discipline come before the investigation?)
Bosses are allowed to suspend or fire a worker immediately in serious situations. (Was the union notified in a timely manner?)
Management should bring the worker back, with back pay, if the investigation shows that the worker is not guilty or there are other facts to consider. (Employee is made whole)
(Why suspect violation? Other witnesses, documents, policies, faulty equipment? Can nurse perform task or need additional training?)

Fair Investigation-Was management fair and objective when they investigated?

If the boss only looks for information that will prove that a worker is guilty, it's not a fair investigation. (Were selective facts utilized?)
Examples include if they refuse to interview witnesses who will back up the worker's story or only interview supervisors.
(How long ago was violation? Management unbiased? Reconciled conflicting statements? Allowed representation?)

Proof-Did the investigation show substantial evidence or proof of guilt?

Unlike criminal court, the boss doesn't have to prove his case "beyond reasonable doubt" (Must still be substantial-not flimsy)
Bosses must have real evidence, not just guesses (What evidence supports the conclusions?)
The boss can't say that the worker has to prove s/he is innocent – the boss has to show proof of guilt. (Management brought violation)

Equal Treatment-Were rules and orders the same for everyone and the penalty for breaking rules the same?

If workers were not treated the same, it is harder for a boss to defend disciplining a worker under a rule. (Discrimination)
This is one of the most common ways that bosses are unfair - that certain "picks" get treated better, not expected to meet the same production and not disciplined the same for breaking a rule. (Must be consistently enforced for all with similar records/infractions)
Bosses can announce that they have a new rule, or are starting to enforce an old rule - so long as they hold everyone to the rule. (Must give notice)

Appropriate Discipline-Does the discipline consider how serious the situation is and the worker's past record?

A worker with a good work history, seniority, and no record of problems should get less discipline, even for the same offense. (Fairness)
The kind of rule which was broken should be considered in the level of discipline.
A mistake that put other workers in danger is more serious than a paperwork mistake.
(Discipline needs to reasonably relate to violation and record. A minor violation does not merit a harsh discipline)