## Facts

- Buckeye Feed Mill, Inc. (Buckeye) produced and distributed food for animals.
- Buckeye had a program allowing union-represented employees to purchase company products at wholesale prices through a defined ordering and pickup process.
- Under the process, employees were required to place an order and pay for it in an administrative office.
- After payment, employees were to pick up the purchased product at the end of the shift by driving to the warehouse, where a designated employee would have placed the product for pickup.
- A union employee with more than 26 years of service took a 50-pound bag of dog food from the warehouse himself and placed it near the back door.
- At the end of his shift, the employee loaded the bag into his vehicle without paying for it through the established office procedure.
- Buckeye investigated the incident and concluded the employee committed theft.
- Buckeye relied on the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) and a company policy that labeled theft a “severe offense” warranting “severe and immediate” discipline.
- The theft policy also described an internal process: the employee would be suspended and investigated, and the company would meet with union representatives “to determine if employee termination” would proceed.
- Buckeye discharged the employee.
- The employee, through his union, filed a grievance challenging the discharge, and the dispute proceeded to labor arbitration under the CBA.

## Issues

1. Whether Buckeye had just cause under the CBA to discharge the employee for taking company product without following the required employee-purchase process.
2. Whether the employee’s conduct met the employer’s definition of “theft” under its policy (including the role of intent) in the context of just-cause review.
3. Whether Buckeye’s stated theft-related procedures (suspension, investigation, and meeting with union representatives regarding termination) affected the just-cause analysis of the discharge.

## Decision

- The matter was submitted to final and binding labor arbitration under the parties’ CBA after the employee’s discharge and the union’s grievance.
- Publicly accessible summaries report the core facts (the wholesale purchase process, the employee’s removal and loading of a bag of dog food without paying, the investigation, the theft-policy language, and the discharge).
- Public sources accessible without the full Labor Arbitration Reports text do not reliably state the arbitrator’s ultimate disposition (for example, whether the grievance was sustained or denied) or any remedy ordered.

## Legal Principles

- In labor arbitration, “just cause” commonly requires (i) proof that the charged misconduct occurred and (ii) a penalty that is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, evaluated in light of the CBA, employer rules, and the employee’s work record.
- When an employer characterizes conduct as theft, arbitrators often evaluate intent and surrounding circumstances rather than treating mere possession or removal of property as automatically dispositive.
- Clear notice of work rules and consistent enforcement are often considered in evaluating whether discipline satisfies just cause, including discipline imposed under “severe offense” policies.
- An employer’s written disciplinary procedure (such as steps for suspension, investigation, and union consultation) may be considered as part of fairness and regularity in applying discipline, even when the CBA’s central standard is just cause.
- Long service may be treated as a mitigating factor in penalty review, but it does not necessarily prevent discharge where the proven conduct is viewed as a serious breach of trust.

## Conclusion

*Buckeye Feed Mill, Inc., 122 Lab. Arb. (BNA) 719 (2006)* concerns a grievance arbitration over the discharge of a union employee with more than 26 years of service after he removed a 50‑pound bag of dog food from the warehouse and loaded it into his vehicle without paying through the employer’s established employee-purchase program; Buckeye treated the conduct as theft under its policy and the CBA, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration, though publicly available summaries do not provide the award’s final outcome.
