Question: Suit was filed as a class action by ten employees of the Kroger Company. These employees claimed that Teamsters International and Teamsters Local 327, which represented their bargaining unit, breached the union's duty to represent all members of the collective bargaining unit fairly. The employees also charged that Kroger conspired with the union to "reduce" the conditions and benefits of their employment. More specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Local 327 failed to represent the members of the union fairly in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with Kroger, with the result that the union "bargained away substantial benefits relating primarily to seniority." The complaint charged the International Union with failing to furnish a skilled negotiator to aid in the negotiations when requested to do so by the negotiating committee.

The complaint also alleged that the business agent and president of Local 327 conspired with Kroger in formulating an agreement that contained terms and conditions that were contrary to union policies and that diminished the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they sought to represent (all the unit members in two Kroger warehouses in the Nashville, Tennessee, area). The complaint further alleged that Local 327 and its business agent and president fraudulently changed the results of a membership vote on the proposed collective bargaining agreement to reflect ratification when in fact the proposed agreement had been rejected. Finally, the complaint asserted that the agreement negotiated by Local 327 and Kroger contained a provision that discriminated against female members of the unit by prescribing a lower wage scale for the unit employees in one of the warehouses than for the employees in the other. Virtually all employees in the warehouse with the lower wage rate were women. Did the union breach its duty of fair representation? See Storey v. Teamsters Local 327 [759 F.2d 517, 118 L.R.R.M. 3273 (6th Cir. 1985)].