## Facts

- Police stopped and searched a vehicle driven by an employee and found stolen meat taken from Commodity Warehousing Corp.
- The driver told police and the employer that a second employee (the grievant) had assisted in stealing meat on multiple occasions.
- Criminal charges were brought against both the driver and the grievant, but the cases were dismissed after a court ruled the vehicle search unlawful.
- The employer discharged (or imposed serious discipline on) the grievant based on information tied to the search and the driver’s accusation.
- At arbitration, the driver testified that he and the grievant stole meat together multiple times; the grievant denied involvement.
- The union moved to exclude the seized evidence and all evidence derived from the search.

## Issues

1. In discharge arbitration, may the union require exclusion of evidence obtained through an unlawful police search of a third party’s vehicle when a criminal court has suppressed that evidence?
2. If the physical fruits of an unlawful search are excluded, must testimony and statements allegedly flowing from that search also be excluded?
3. Does the grievant have a right to object to use of evidence based on a Fourth Amendment violation directed at someone else?

## Decision

- The arbitrator denied the union’s motion to exclude the evidence tied to the unlawful search.
- The arbitrator permitted consideration of the driver’s testimony and related proof despite criminal-case suppression.
- The arbitrator sustained the employer’s discipline, finding the evidence sufficient to establish misconduct supporting discharge.

## Legal Principles

- Labor arbitration is a contractual forum; strict judicial rules of evidence, including criminal suppression doctrines, do not automatically apply.
- The exclusionary rule’s deterrence rationale in criminal proceedings generally does not require excluding relevant, probative evidence in a private just-cause dispute.
- An employee ordinarily cannot obtain suppression based on an unlawful search directed at another person rather than the grievant.
- Dismissal of criminal charges for suppression reasons does not, by itself, bar workplace discipline where the arbitral record supports just cause.

## Conclusion

The arbitrator treated suppression as inapplicable in this contractual discharge case, rejected an exclusionary-rule-based attempt to bar evidence arising from an unlawful search of a third party, and upheld discipline based on the admitted proof of theft-related misconduct.


Commodity Warehousing Corp., 60 Lab. Arb. Rep. (BNA) 1260 (Doppelt 1973)