Kroger Limited Partnership
Labor Arbitration
122 Lab. Arb. (BNA) 413 (2006)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Kroger (defendant) operated retail grocery stores. A union employee of a specified store (the employee) (plaintiff) had worked for Kroger for almost five years when she committed an act that resulted in her discharge. The employee worked a graveyard shift, stocking groceries. She had numerous warnings in her disciplinary record for various issues, including failing to follow instructions. One night of work, the employee selected a food item from the frozen-food aisle, heated it up, and consumed it during her break without paying for it during her shift. The employee admitted she did not pay for the food item but claimed she intended to pay for it when her shift ended. Following an investigation, Kroger determined that the employee committed an act of dishonesty and was subject to discharge based on the collective-bargaining agreement (the agreement) and company policy. Kroger’s policy, which was echoed in the agreement, was that employee dishonesty of any kind would “not be tolerated and shall be cause for discharge, regardless of amount or length of service.” Dishonesty included an act of removing company property without a sales receipt or written authorization from management. Kroger discharged the employee, and she filed a labor grievance through her union. Arbitration followed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nicholas, Arbitrator)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.