Tammy Crampton v. Kroger Company
709 F. App'x 807
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tammy Crampton and Mary Beth Savage were longtime Kroger grocery clerks who admitted they knowingly purchased store items while "on the clock," violating Kroger's Purchase Policy in early 2014.
- Kroger enforces a "zero tolerance" Purchase Policy and discharged both employees for proven violations.
- Both employees' employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement; the Union (UFCW Local 876) filed grievances that were denied at all three contract steps and then declined to pursue arbitration.
- Plaintiffs brought a hybrid § 301 LMRA action against Kroger for wrongful discharge and against the Union for breach of the duty of fair representation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Kroger and the Union; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the highly deferential standard to the Union's decision not to arbitrate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Union breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to arbitrate after Step 3 denials | Union acted arbitrarily by not pursuing arbitration because the violations were de minimis and mitigated by illness | Union reasonably relied on its longstanding practice of not arbitrating proven Purchase Policy violations; arbitration refusal falls within a wide range of reasonableness | Union's refusal was not arbitrary; summary judgment for Union affirmed |
| Whether Kroger wrongfully discharged plaintiffs under § 301 independently of the Union claim | Termination was disproportionate to the minor offense and should be overturned | Discharge was a lawful, consistently applied penalty for proven violations of a valid rule | Plaintiffs cannot maintain § 301 wrongful discharge claim absent prevailing on the companion duty-of-fair-representation claim; summary judgment for Kroger affirmed |
| Whether evidence of selective enforcement by Kroger created a factual dispute precluding summary judgment | Plaintiffs point to alleged selective enforcement to show disparate treatment and bad faith | Record lacked evidence that Kroger knew of proven but unpunished violations; no selective enforcement shown | No genuine issue of material fact on selective enforcement; did not preclude summary judgment |
| Standard of review for a union's decision not to arbitrate | Plaintiffs urge closer scrutiny here given severity of penalty | Union's conduct reviewed under highly deferential "wide range of reasonableness" standard; only wholly irrational or extreme arbitrariness breaches duty | Court applied deferential standard and found Union's conduct within reasonable bounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) (establishes deferential standard for union duty-of-fair-representation review)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1953) (framework for union representation obligations)
- White v. Detroit Edison Co., 472 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2006) (union refusal to arbitrate falls within wide range of reasonableness)
- Driver v. U.S. Postal Serv., 328 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2003) (hybrid § 301 claim requires prevailing on both employer and union claims)
- Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. NLRB, 844 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2016) (discusses arbitrary, discriminatory, bad faith routes for union breach)
- Garrison v. Cassens Transp. Co., 334 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2003) (extreme arbitrariness standard explained)
- Linton v. United Parcel Serv., 15 F.3d 1365 (6th Cir. 1994) (failure to follow past practice can indicate arbitrariness)
- Ruzicka v. General Motors Corp., 649 F.2d 1207 (6th Cir. 1981) (union may rely on prevailing practices in arbitration decisions)
- Bowerman v. Int'l Union, Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers, 646 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2011) (union's duty is to all members; cannot satisfy all individual grievances)