NYC (Union Square) Whole Foods fires worker over sandwich

[Saddle Bronc 124]

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/...-fighting-back/

Fired Over a Tuna Sandwich, and Fighting Back

By Jennifer 8. Lee

Whole Foods fired Ralph Reese for taking a tuna fish sandwich. But was it misconduct? It is a question that matters. Anyone fired for misconduct is denied unemployment benefits.

Whole Foods argued that Mr. Reese, 57, of Queens, tried to steal a sandwich by taking it from the trash at the end of his shift as a deli clerk at the Union Square Whole Foods on Nov. 9. The company’s policy is that food cannot be taken without being paid for, though employees receive a 20 percent discount.

“I cannot comment specifically on this case, on this person, and the conditions of his employment by Whole Foods,” said Libba Letton, a spokeswoman for Whole Foods. But she did say, “Whole Foods Markets has a program that team members are encouraged to try our different products.”

She said the program helps the employees learn more about the products so they can be of more help to customers. But there is a defined procedure, she said: They must ask their supervisor, the food is logged and accounted for, and the servings are typically sample-size.

“Any variation from this procedure would be taken very seriously,” Ms. Letton said.

Initially, New York State ruled that the tuna sandwich episode was misconduct, based on Whole Foods’ statement about the trash. In New York, as in other states, employers’ unemployment insurance rates are based on the amount of the benefits their former workers collect [pdf] — giving them an incentive to limit the number of employees who receive unemployment.

Mr. Reese challenged the ruling in January. “I knew what they said was wrong,” said Mr. Reese, who earned $11.50 an hour.

His version of the story: He was throwing out 30 sandwiches at the end of the shift, and he put the tuna sandwich aside on the counter in plain view. When the supervisor confronted him about it, he said it was going to be thrown out and he was going to eat it.

The supervisor then threw the sandwich out.

Two days later, Mr. Reese was fired.

Mr. Reese had worked at Whole Foods for two years. He had transferred to the deli department from the grocery department, where his previous supervisor had allowed employees to take damaged food. “They can’t sell them,” Mr. Reese said. “They can only write them off as a loss. That is why they throw them out. That is why they don’t mind giving it to us.”

Mr. Reese said that he had never fished the sandwich out of the garbage, and that he openly admitted that he was planning to eat it. “That’s why I had to take it to court,” he said. “I couldn’t let them get away with that.”

Whole Foods did not send a representative to court.

The administrative law judge, William Badillo, ruled in February that Mr. Reese did not eat the food without paying for it and that he did not take the food out of the store. And given the fact that Mr. Reese did not have any prior record of warnings, it was seen as an “isolated instance of poor judgment which does not rise to the level of misconduct.”

Elizabeth A. Shollenberger, director of government benefits and consumer law for Queens Legal Services, said that in the last six months her office had seen an uptick of cases like Mr. Reese’s, in which unemployment claims were being challenged. It is a phenomenon happening not only in New York, but also across the country. “A lot more people are getting fired for very minor reasons,” said Ms. Shollenberger, who represented Mr. Reese.

“What we are seeing is that they are firing people for ‘misconduct’ when what they are really doing is downsizing and it’s an attempt to not pay benefits,” she said.

Last year, she said, her office was seeing three or four such cases a week. Now she estimated that they are seeing 15 to 20 cases a week, 80 percent of which she says have merit. (Nationwide, employees win in two-thirds of the cases.)

Still, some of the level of claims have been surprising to her. “I’m not going to shop at Whole Foods anymore,” she said. “Their behavior was outrageous, the way they treated this man.”

Mr. Reese, who is still unemployed, started receiving his benefits two weeks ago. “All of this,” he mused, “over something that was going in the garbage.”

The only misconduct here was that of the supervisor!

[mawilson 2,133]

Ridiculous.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually Cherry - you'll find that this is standard practice in most retail establishments. My wife (retail auditor) has a pretty strong opinion on stuff like this - the sandwich may have been throwaway but it puts the employee in a position of distrust.

Its not unheard of for sales associates to discount or "dispose" perfectly good merchandise so they can get a freebie (in fact that's one of the biggest causes of retail shortage in her current job - people taking designer clothes and using override codes to discount them so that they or an accomplice can buy them for nothing), and as far as the principle goes its still stealing - the same as if the guy took the sandwich (or 10 sandwiches) off the shelf without paying for them.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Private Pike

[fozzie 41]

Whole Foods is actually near the top of most lists of best places to work.. This surprises me.

[childress_london 3]

The firing might have been going to far. I think a reprimand would have sufficed for a first time offense, especially since he was an established employee. But yes, these are common established rules for anyplace that deals with food. I worked for KFC a long time ago, and any chicken left over at the end of the day had to be discarded. This keeps people from taking advantage of the system and making more food than is necessary so that there will be extra food to be discarded at the end of the day so they can take it home. The story sounds ridiculous at first, but it makes sense once you realize the reason behind the rules.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It's typical for many stores to fire workers for consuming goods that are to be thrown away. This is not that they don't want to pay for unemployment benefits, but comes to reducing dishonesty and promoting integrity within stores.

I've witness, and also heard hundreds of these incident yearly through case studies in the HR dept on employment ethics.

[childress_london 3]

Exactly. Can you imagine the cost to the store/restaurant when dishonest people make food to take home later and mark it "discard"? That would just drive up the costs to the consumer as well. I know if I owned a business I would not be happy with my employees doing that.

[peejay 327]

When I was going to college I worked in the shipping and receiving of a Target store. All the perishable seasonal candy or foods (Halloween, Valentine's, etc.) is marked down after the holiday passes. First by 25%...then by 50%...then by 75%. Whatever is left over after that (and it is quite a lot) got sent to the trash compactor to be rendered unedible. We were strictly forbidden from eating or taking any of it home as per company policy.

[fozzie 41]

When I was going to college I worked in the shipping and receiving of a Target store. All the perishable seasonal candy or foods (Halloween, Valentine's, etc.) is marked down after the holiday passes. First by 25%...then by 50%...then by 75%. Whatever is left over after that (and it is quite a lot) got sent to the trash compactor to be rendered unedible. We were strictly forbidden from eating or taking any of it home as per company policy.

My problem with this, and I understand the policy and integrity issues, is that this food is still wasted!!! Inthis instance the staff are not pruposfully marking it discard because the policy in place prohibits them from benefiting. This food should be given to the homeless shelters after the store closes! Throw it away or give it to those who need it?. Not only does this make sense from a social conscience perspective but also from a business perspective. The good will generated by such a apractice would be huge.

Edited March 18, 2009 by fozzie

[Niels Bohr 72]

When I was going to college I worked in the shipping and receiving of a Target store. All the perishable seasonal candy or foods (Halloween, Valentine's, etc.) is marked down after the holiday passes. First by 25%...then by 50%...then by 75%. Whatever is left over after that (and it is quite a lot) got sent to the trash compactor to be rendered unedible. We were strictly forbidden from eating or taking any of it home as per company policy.

My problem with this, and I understand the policy and integrity issues, is that this food is still wasted!!! Inthis instance the staff are not pruposfully marking it discard because the policy in place prohibits them from benefiting. This food should be given to the homeless shelters after the store closes! Throw it away or give it to those who need it?. Not only does this make sense from a social conscience perspective but also from a business perspective. The good will generated by such a apractice would be huge.

HR would respond, "if it's good enough for you to eat, then it's good enough to sell"

[Nagishkaw 510]

What a waste.

[fozzie 41]

When I was going to college I worked in the shipping and receiving of a Target store. All the perishable seasonal candy or foods (Halloween, Valentine's, etc.) is marked down after the holiday passes. First by 25%...then by 50%...then by 75%. Whatever is left over after that (and it is quite a lot) got sent to the trash compactor to be rendered unedible. We were strictly forbidden from eating or taking any of it home as per company policy.

My problem with this, and I understand the policy and integrity issues, is that this food is still wasted!!! Inthis instance the staff are not pruposfully marking it discard because the policy in place prohibits them from benefiting. This food should be given to the homeless shelters after the store closes! Throw it away or give it to those who need it?. Not only does this make sense from a social conscience perspective but also from a business perspective. The good will generated by such a apractice would be huge.

HR would respond, "if it's good enough for you to eat, then it's good enough to sell"

Huh? These are perishable items, once they have not been sold at the end of the day then they can't sell them!!

[Niels Bohr 72]

When I was going to college I worked in the shipping and receiving of a Target store. All the perishable seasonal candy or foods (Halloween, Valentine's, etc.) is marked down after the holiday passes. First by 25%...then by 50%...then by 75%. Whatever is left over after that (and it is quite a lot) got sent to the trash compactor to be rendered unedible. We were strictly forbidden from eating or taking any of it home as per company policy.

My problem with this, and I understand the policy and integrity issues, is that this food is still wasted!!! Inthis instance the staff are not pruposfully marking it discard because the policy in place prohibits them from benefiting. This food should be given to the homeless shelters after the store closes! Throw it away or give it to those who need it?. Not only does this make sense from a social conscience perspective but also from a business perspective. The good will generated by such a apractice would be huge.

HR would respond, "if it's good enough for you to eat, then it's good enough to sell"

Huh? These are perishable items, once they have not been sold at the end of the day then they can't sell them!!

Not according to them. They'll say, "well, if it's perishable and cannot be sold it would be a liability issue if something happens to you"

[Nagishkaw 510]

If someone can use the darn sandwich, why on earth do they insist on throwing it out unless they are worried about some sort of liability in case the sandwich got spoiled and the person eating it might sue over food poisoning.

[HAL 9000 96]

It pays to ask before taking what isn't paid for.