## Facts

- L. was a truck driver for Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. (Stroehmann) (defendant).
- L. often made overnight deliveries to a supermarket where W. worked.
- After one delivery, W. accused L. of making sexual remarks and grabbing her breasts.
- W. told her mother about the incident.
- W.’s mother told the supermarket manager, who then notified a manager at Stroehmann.
- Stroehmann managers spoke with W. by phone.
- There were apparent inconsistencies between the account relayed by the supermarket manager and the account W. gave to Stroehmann on the phone.
- Stroehmann managers later concluded W. was credible, but they did not question W. about the inconsistencies.
- The managers confronted L. about the allegations; L. denied them.
- No representative of the Teams Local (union) (plaintiff) was present at that meeting.
- An agreement between Stroehmann and the union provided that further investigation would occur, but Stroehmann did not conduct additional investigation after L.’s denial.
- Stroehmann made a brief presentation of the matter to upper management, and L.’s employment was terminated.
- The union timely processed a grievance to arbitration.
- The parties disputed whether the termination was for just cause and, if not, what the proper remedy was, including whether the evidence was sufficient to support termination.

## Issues

1. Did Stroehmann prove just cause under the parties’ agreement to discharge L. based on W.’s allegations and the evidence gathered before the termination decision?
2. How did Stroehmann’s choice not to follow up on inconsistencies and not to conduct the further investigation contemplated by the parties’ agreement affect the just-cause analysis?
3. If just cause was not shown, what remedy should the arbitrator order under the agreement?

## Decision

- The arbitrator found that Stroehmann did not establish just cause for discharge on the record it created before terminating L.
- The arbitrator relied on the limited investigation, including the failure to address inconsistencies in W.’s accounts and the failure to conduct additional inquiry contemplated by the parties’ agreement, in concluding the proof was insufficient to sustain termination.
- The grievance was sustained and a make-whole remedy was ordered consistent with the agreement (including reinstatement and back pay subject to any offsets typically applied in arbitration).

## Legal Principles

- In a discharge arbitration, the employer bears the burden to show just cause with reliable evidence tied to the charged misconduct.
- When discipline turns largely on one witness’s account and the employee’s denial, the employer’s credibility assessment must be supported by reasonable investigative steps, including checking obvious inconsistencies.
- If a collective-bargaining agreement calls for further investigation before final discipline, ignoring that process can weigh against a finding of just cause.
- Arbitration remedies commonly aim to restore the employee to the position they would have been in absent unjust discipline, subject to contractual limits and standard mitigation concepts.

## Conclusion

In *Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc., 98 Lab. Arb. Rep. 873 (1990)*, a union challenged the discharge of a bakery truck driver accused by a supermarket employee of sexual misconduct during an overnight delivery. Although management credited the accuser, it did not question her about inconsistencies, did not perform the additional investigation contemplated by the parties’ agreement after the driver denied wrongdoing, and terminated the driver after only a brief internal review. The arbitrator treated the adequacy of the investigation and the strength of the proof as central to just cause, sustained the grievance, and ordered a make-whole remedy.
