Teamsters Local Union No. 89 v. Kroger Co.
| Decision Date | 05 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:10–CV–00647–CRS.,3:10–CV–00647–CRS. |
| Citation | 921 F.Supp.2d 733 |
| Parties | TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 89, Plaintiff v. The KROGER CO., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kyle A. McCoy, Scott D. Soldon, Soldon Law Firm, LLC, Shorewood, WI, Robert M. Colone, Louisville, KY, for Plaintiff.
Demetrius O. Holloway, John Lewis Tate, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Louisville, KY, Frederick L. Schwartz, Kathryn E. Siegel, Littler Mendelson, PC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
This matter is before the court on two motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Teamsters Local Union No. 89 (“the Union”), filed a motion for summary judgment against the Defendant, The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”), in which the Union seeks to compel Kroger to arbitrate its former employee's grievance pursuant to Kroger's collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Union (DN 60). Kroger's motion for summary judgment contends that the CBA is inapplicable to the grievance at issue, and as such Kroger is not obligated to arbitrate (DN 57).
The Union's complaint asserts that by refusing to arbitrate, Kroger: (1) violated and breached Kroger's CBA with the Union; (2) violated the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 because Kroger is allegedly a joint employer of the grievant; and (3) violated the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4 (DN 1). The Union seeks an order that Kroger is obligated to arbitrate, either in bilateral or tripartite arbitration, and that attorneys' fees are warranted (DN 1).
For the reasons set forth herein, the court will grant Kroger's motion for summary judgment as a matter of law and deny the Union's motion for summary judgment.
The following facts are undisputed (DNs 57 and 60): Kroger owns a warehouse and distribution center, the Kroger Distribution Center (“KDC”). Prior to 2007, Kroger also employed warehouse and transportation employees at the KDC. Regarding these employees, Kroger and the Union were parties to two agreements, (1) a national CBA—the Kroger Master Agreement (“KMA”)—which included a grievance and arbitration clause; and (2) a supplemental CBA, which addressed local union issues.
(1) In October 2006, Kroger announced its intention to “changeover” operations at the KDC and contract with outside vendors for transportation and warehouse services.
(2) In November 2006, Kroger and the Union bargained over Kroger's decision to use outside vendors at the KDC. The parties' negotiated a “Letter of Understanding” (“LOU”) to ensure that KDC employees would retain bargaining unit protections while the Union negotiated agreements with the vendors. 1 In the LOU the parties agreed that until the Union reached a CBA with each vendor, Kroger would process pending employee grievances under the KMA.
(3) In February 2007, the Union successfully negotiated CBAs with the vendors—Transervice Logistics Inc. (“Transervice”) for transportation operations, and Zenith Logistics (“Zenith”) for warehouse operations.
(4) In April 2007, after the vendors negotiated CBAs with the Union, Kroger and the Union amended the LOU and agreed (1) that Kroger would settle a specific list of pending employee grievances under the KMA; (2) that the Union would withdraw a specific list of pending grievances from being arbitrated under the KMA; (3) that the LOU would expire in September 2011; and (4) that “Kroger will meet with [the Union] and either resolve any outstanding grievances resulting from [KDC employees'] employment with Kroger or permit the grievances to proceed through the Kroger Master Grievance Process.” (DN 57). The LOU was silent regarding future employee grievances against Kroger. However, Kroger specifically rejected two Union proposals: (a) Kroger would not allow all former Kroger employees at the KDC to remain covered by Kroger's KMA; and (b) Kroger would not agree to be a joint employer to all former Kroger employees at the KDC (DNs 57 and 60).2
(5) In February 2007, Kroger instituted the changeover and transferred KDC operations to Transervice and Zenith. Pursuant to Kroger's negotiations with the Union, the vendors hired most of Kroger's former employees at the KDC.
(6) In April 2007—after the Union's ongoing CBA negotiations with the vendors failed and the KDC employees went on a short strike—the Union finalized CBAs with Transervice and Zenith. After those CBAs were finalized, Kroger's former employees were covered by the Union's CBAs with Transervice or Zenith.
This case arose regarding a former Kroger employee, Frank Herdt, who worked as a driver at the KDC prior to the 2007 changeover (DNs 57 and 60). Transervice hired Herdt in 2007 and he became a bargaining unit employee under Transervice's CBA with the Union, which included an arbitration provision just as the KMA did with Kroger (DN 57).
In late 2009, Herdt was arrested for stealing from Kroger (DN 60). In response, Kroger's risk management department alerted Transervice, Herdt's employer, that Herdt was banned from Kroger property. He was no longer permitted to make deliveries to any Kroger facilities and denied further access to Kroger property, including the KDC (DNs 57 and 60).
In July 2010, the Union filed a grievance with Kroger on Herdt's behalf (DN 60). The grievance acknowledges that Herdt was not a Kroger employee, but rather a Transervice employee (DN 1). However, the Union identifies Kroger's KMA as the basis for the grievance and alleges that Kroger violated KMA Article 10, which provides that Kroger will not terminate an employee without just cause (DN 1).3 The grievance states that “Kroger disciplined and caused the suspension of the grievant, Frankie Herdt, without just cause and without first being given a hearing, when it barred him from its property, continues to bar him from its property, and thereby prevents him from performing bargaining unit work.” (DN 60). In other words, the Union alleges that Kroger effectively terminated Herdt by banning him from Kroger property, even though Herdt was not directly employed by Kroger.
Herdt's criminal charges were later dismissed. Pursuant to Transervice's CBA with the Union, Transervice reinstated Herdt and he was awarded backpay and benefits (DN 60).
When Kroger banned Herdt from its property both Transervice and the Union contacted Kroger on Herdt's behalf (1) Transervice requested via letter that Kroger rescind the ban and allow Herdt onto its property, which Kroger denied (DN 57); and (2) the Union filed a grievance with Kroger, which Kroger refused to arbitrate (DN 60).
In response to Transervice, Kroger denied the request to allow Herdt onto Kroger's property in August and in September of 2010 (DN 57). Kroger noted that Herdt was Transervice's employee and the “decision as to what employment action to take with respect to Herdt belongs solely to Transervice.” Thus, Kroger denied responsibility for paying Herdt's backpay and benefits, explaining that “[t]o suggest Kroger was responsible for any costs associated with the fact that your employee was stealing from Kroger, your customer, is entirely inappropriate.” (DN 57) (emphasis in original).
In response to the Union's grievance, Kroger's Vice President of Labor Relationsstated via letter in September 2010 that (DN 60):
Herdt was employed by Transervice and not Kroger. Further ... Kroger and Local 89 [the Union] no longer have a collective bargaining relationship and Local 89 does not represent any Kroger employees. In addition, Kroger did not discipline or suspend Herdt. Rather, any actions taken with regard to [Herdt's] employment were taken by his employer, Transervice. Therefore, to the extent that the grievance alleges violations of the Kroger Master Agreement, be advised that Kroger will not agree to arbitrate this grievance. [Kroger] suggest[s] that you contact Transervice regarding any grievance.
Thus, Kroger contends (1) that it has not employed Herdt since 2007 and did not terminate him; (2) that Kroger is not party to a Union CBA that covers Herdt; (3) that Transervice both employs Herdt and has a Union CBA that covers his grievance; (4) that Herdt successfully exercised his right to grieve his dismissal with Transervice; (5) that Kroger is not obligated under any agreement to allow former employees perpetual access to Kroger-owned property, and (6) that Kroger's act of banning Herdt from its property was not termination (DN 60). Thus, Kroger refuses to participate in arbitration with the Union and asserts that the KMA is not applicable to Herdt's grievance.
In August 2011, one year after the Union grieved Herdt's termination with Kroger, the Union filed an unfair labor practices charge against Kroger with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). The Union alleged that in 2011—four years after the changeover at the KDC—Kroger failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union regarding KDC employees (DN 57).4 The NLRB dismissed the charge based on insufficient evidence (DN 57). The Union then appealed to the NLRB's Office of Appeals, which denied the appeal (DN 57).
The NLRB's Office of Appeals explained that it denied the Union's appeal (1) because the evidence “fails to establish that Kroger is a joint employer of the employees of Zenith and Transervice;” (2) because the Union's evidence of joint employer status “is consistent with Kroger being the customer of Zenith and Transervice;” and (3) because Kroger “no longer directly employs Local 89 members.” (DN 57). The NLRB reasoned that a “business entity that is the customer of an employer and owns the property utilized by the employer to operate its business has some impact on the day-to-day activities of the employees of the employer, but this impact does not establish a joint employer status.” ( citing AM Prop. Holding Corp., 350 NLRB 998 (2007)enforced, 647 F.3d 435 (2d Cir.2011)); Teamsters Local Union No. 89 v. Kroger Co., 617 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merritt v. Mountain Laurel Chalets, Inc.
...Laurel's services. [Id. at ¶ 21] The first allegation corresponds to none of the four factors. Cf. Teamsters Local Union No. 89 v. Kroger Co., 921 F.Supp.2d 733, 743 n. 8 (W.D.Ky.2013) (refusing to apply toward the first factor the fact that several of defendant's ex-employees retained thei......
-
Narjes v. Absolute Health Servs., Inc.
...pay," did not support a determination that the entity defendants were joint employers). See, e.g., Teamsters Local Union No. 89 v. Kroger Co., 921 F.Supp.2d 733, 743 (W.D. Ky. 2013) (holding that the entity defendant's mere involvement in the day-to-day operations with a delivery servicecom......