Ohio Supreme Court Remands Eighth District Decision Denying Arbitration of Union’s Termination Grievance
Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Lakewood, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2052. Decided June 12, 2025
A City of Lakewood employee was fired for misconduct while under a last chance agreement. The last chance agreement was entered into after the employee was terminated for “insubordinate, inappropriate, and intimidating acts in the workplace.” The Union filed a grievance challenging the termination in response.
The grievance was resolved by entering into the last chance agreement and returning the employee to work. As is typical, the agreement provided that any further misconduct would result in the employee’s termination, and the termination would not be subject to the grievance process.
The agreement did not last long. Exactly one year later, the City moved to terminate the employee again. The Union filed a grievance. Puzzled, the City responded that the grievance process was not available due to the last chance agreement. The Union claimed that the City had violated the CBA, and that was the basis of the grievance (the decision does not specify what the nature of the alleged violation was).
Based on the City’s refusal to process the grievance for arbitration, the Union filed suit seeking an order compelling the City to participate in the arbitration of the grievance. The Court obliged, and the City appealed. The City argued that the suit alleges violations of Chapter 4117, over which the State Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction, not the Court. The City alleged on appeal that the lower court made two errors:
- The lower court had erred by exercising jurisdiction over the case; and
- the lower court had erred by granting the Union’s application and motion to compel arbitration.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga) decided in favor of the City, addressing only the City’s first allegation of error by the lower court. The court held that because the Union was bringing claims that “arise from or depend on collective bargaining rights created by R.C. Chapter 4117,” the lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Union’s case. The court stated that while the Union was not explicitly seeking relief under Chapter 4117 of the Revised Code, it was substantively alleging that the City had interfered with the employee’s collective bargaining rights by refusing to arbitrate the grievance under the CBA.
The Union appealed and the Ohio Supreme Court decided to accept the case. The Supreme Court looked to the nature of what the Union was trying to do, which was to compel the City to obey the collective bargaining agreement when it alleged that the City violated it by refusing to participate in arbitration. The Union was not alleging that the City had engaged in or was committing an unfair labor practice under Chapter 4117.
The Supreme Court then determined that, even though there is some overlap between the subject matters covered by 4117 regarding unfair labor practices, exclusive representation, and actions to enforce rights under a collective bargaining agreement, the law provides remedies for both situations. The Court expressly stated that its decision does not mean that a party may bring any claim for a violation of a collective bargaining agreement in a court of common pleas. If a CBA has an arbitration provision, the arbitration provision governs. If one party refuses to arbitrate, the Court concluded that R.C. 4117.09(B)(1) allows a party to bring a suit in the Common Pleas Court to attempt to compel the arbitration guaranteed by the CBA.
Although the lines of distinction can be a bit hazy, readers can take three things from this case:
- SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practice charges filed with SERB, as well as complaints filed with a court that allege conduct that would constitute an unfair labor practice. In other words, if you try to run to court with a ULP, the court should send you packing.
- If a CBA has an arbitration provision, the parties are bound to resolve disputes governing the terms and conditions of the CBA, solely by the arbitration procedure (subject to limited appeals to court). If, for example, a district is alleged to have improperly disciplined an employee or improperly denied a vacation or a personal leave day, the parties must resolve the dispute through the grievance process. The employee cannot simply run to court and sue the district over the denial of a personal day.
- Where a party refuses to perform under the CBA, such as by refusing to arbitrate when the CBA requires it, that party can be sued in court to be compelled to follow the CBA.
