Ohio Supreme Court Remands Eighth District Decision Denying Arbitration of Union’s Termination Grievance

Ohio Supreme Court Remands Eighth District Decision Denying Arbitration of Union’s Termination Grievance

by | Jun 18, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment

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:

  1. The lower court had erred by exercising jurisdiction over the case; and
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

 

 

 

Elimination of Property Tax Proposal Moves Forward

Elimination of Property Tax Proposal Moves Forward

by | Jun 18, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment, School Finance

On May 14, 2025, the Ohio Ballot Board voted to certify a proposed constitutional amendment from Citizens for Property Tax Reform to ban property taxes in the state of Ohio. Many individuals joined the group after receiving letters related to the state-mandated reappraisal in 2024. The state-mandated reappraisal happens every six years in Ohio. No state has yet abolished property tax, although a few have limited it significantly.

In order to make it onto the November 2025 ballot, at least 413,487 voters must give their signatures prior to July 2, 2025. These signatures must come from voters in at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Supporters of the proposed amendment say they are worried about seniors on fixed income who cannot afford the increase in property taxes. Critics say that abolishing the property tax will make it difficult to fund essential services.

 What would this mean for your school district?

The proposed amendment does not include any indication of how major public programs like public education would be funded without property taxes. Nor is there any legislative solution proposed at this time. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine told reporters that, in what he has seen so far, the effect would be devastating to our schools. Banning property taxes outright could put children, families, and communities at risk because the government would not be able to provide services. This includes not only public education, but libraries, police, firefighters, or other services that are funded with property taxes.

 

 

Ohio Supreme Court Remands Eighth District Decision Denying Arbitration of Union’s Termination Grievance

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds School Board’s Authority to Suspend Administrative Contracts under Local Policy

by | May 14, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment, Special Education

On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision in State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025-Ohio-1510, affirming the Seventh District Court of Appeals’ denial of a writ of mandamus sought by four former school administrators. The administrators had petitioned for reinstatement to their former positions with back pay and benefits, arguing that the school district’s administrative contract suspension policy (Policy 1540) was invalid under R.C. 3319.171. The Court held that the administrators failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief sought and clarified the limited scope of mandamus in the context of contract suspensions under local board policy.

The case arose after the Switzerland of Ohio Board of Education, acting on a recommendation from a new superintendent seeking to streamline an overstaffed central office, suspended the contracts of several administrators in 2021. The Board relied on Policy 1540, a policy adopted more than a decade earlier pursuant to R.C. 3319.171, which allows boards of education to develop local procedures for suspending administrative personnel contracts. The administrators challenged the validity of Policy 1540, arguing it failed to include two elements required by the statute: a method for determining the order of suspension and a restoration provision.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the administrators’ argument. It emphasized that while R.C. 3319.171 requires a locally adopted policy to contain certain elements, it does not create an enforceable right to reinstatement through mandamus. Unlike statutes that impose specific procedural safeguards for nonrenewal or termination of contracts (e.g., R.C. 3319.02 or R.C. 3319.111), R.C. 3319.171 is permissive in nature and vests discretion in local boards. The Court held that, absent a statutory right to reinstatement, mandamus is not an appropriate vehicle for relief.

Implications for School Districts:

This decision affirms the authority of local boards of education to suspend administrative contracts under their own policies, provided those policies were adopted under R.C. 3319.171. The Ruble decision provides a measure of protection against challenges that rely solely on technical arguments lacking clear statutory remedies.

 

 

Elimination of Property Tax Proposal Moves Forward

SB33 Allows Employers to Post Labor Law Notices Online

by | May 14, 2025 | Labor and Employment

Ohio recently passed SB33, which goes into effect on July 21, 2025. This law makes changes to the requirement for employers to post labor law notices and will now allow them to be posted online. Previously, employers were required to post labor law notices in a conspicuous location(s) of employment.

The labor law notices that are required to be posted are the following:

  • Ohio’s Minor Labor Law (excluding the list of minors employed by an employer)
  • Ohio’s Minimum Fair Wage Standards Law (minimum wage and overtime)
  • Ohio’s Civil Rights Law
  • Ohio’s Prevailing Wage Law
  • Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Law
  • Ohio’s Public Employment Risk Reduction Program Law

The law is clear that the online posting location must be accessible for employees and the public. If the employer chooses to do so, the postings can still be done physically.

What does this mean for your school district? 

Your district may still wish to post the required labor law notices physically in each place of employment if you wish to, but it will no longer be necessary. You can now place them on your school website in a place that is accessible for your employees and the public to see. Please contact your attorney at Ennis Britton if you have any questions or concerns about where and how to post the required notices.

 

 

 

HB 106: Paystub Protection Act To Require Detailed Paystubs

HB 106: Paystub Protection Act To Require Detailed Paystubs

by | Apr 17, 2025 | General, Labor and Employment

House Bill 106, the Paystub Protection Act, just recently went into effect April 9 and will require that employers provide detailed pay statements to employees on regular paydays. While employers may already be providing pay statements, there is a new level of detail required that may prompt changes for school paystubs and even require future changes in the state payroll system.

The Act requires that you provide each employee with a written or electronic pay statement that includes the employee’s earnings and deductions for each pay period, on the employer’s regular paydays.

This pay statement must also include:
1. The employee’s name;
2. The employee’s address;
3. The employer’s name;
4. The total gross wages earned by the employee during the pay period;
5. The total net wages paid to the employee for the pay period;
6. A listing of the amount and purpose of each addition to or deduction from the wages paid to the employee during the pay period;
7. The date the employee was paid and the pay period covered by that payment; and
8. For an employee who is paid on an hourly basis, all of the following information:

a. The total number of hours the employee worked in that pay period;
b. The hourly wage rate at which the employee was paid; and
c. The employee’s hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one workweek.

The Act gives a 10-day grace period if you fail to provide the pay statement on the employee’s payday. However, if you fail to provide the required paystub for more than 10 days after the employee requests their paystub, the employee may submit a report of the violation to the Ohio Director of Commerce. The Ohio Director of Commerce will investigate and may issue a written notice of violation to the district. Districts must then post the notice of violation for 10 days in a conspicuous place.

What does this mean for your district?

Districts should conduct a review of payroll processes to ensure that paystubs are consistently sent out on the district’s regular paydays, and that paystubs include the necessary details. If they do not, districts may want to review the requirements with your IT department for your billing software. Additionally, districts may need to make changes to how you toll and count employee leave. Contact an attorney at Ennis Britton if you have any questions or concerns about compliance with this Act.

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_135/legislation/hb106/05_EN/pdf/

 

 

 

OEC Reaffirms Family Hiring Restrictions, Expands Definition to Include Domestic Partners

OEC Reaffirms Family Hiring Restrictions, Expands Definition to Include Domestic Partners

by | Apr 17, 2025 | General, Labor and Employment

In their first formal advisory opinion of the year, the Ohio Ethics Commission (OEC) expanded the definition of family member to include domestic partnerships. A “domestic partner” includes a person who is living with the public official or employee in a common law marital relationship or who is otherwise cohabiting with the public official. In this context, “cohabitate” means a romantic/intimate relationship. Following this expansion, the Commission’s definition of a “member of a public official’s family” includes but is not limited to: (1) grandparents; (2) parents and step-parents; (3) spouses; (4) children and step-children; (5) grandchildren; (6) siblings; (7) any person related by blood or marriage that resides in the same household as the public official; (8) and domestic partners.

Ohio’s Public Contract Law prohibits public officials from using their authority or influence to secure a contract in which they, a member of their family, or any of their business associates has an interest. Additionally, conflict of interest laws prohibit public officials from using their authority to secure anything of value for family members who are seeking employment with, or are employed by, the same public agency, and from soliciting or accepting anything of value that may manifest in a substantial and improper influence upon the public official.

These laws create several general family hiring restrictions. Notably, public officials cannot:

  • Directly hire members of their family or vote to authorize the employment of a family member;
  • Recommend, nominate, or use their position in any way to secure a job for a family member;
  • Participate in a decision to give a family member a raise, promotion, job advancement, overtime pay or assignments, favorable performance evaluations, or other things of value related to employment; or
  • Use their official position, formally or informally, to impact the decisions or actions of other officials or employees in matters that could affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment.

The Ohio Ethics Commission has advised that this does not amount to a “no-relatives” policy. Provided the school official is sufficiently detached from all employment decisions involving their family member, Ohio’s Ethics laws do not absolutely bar family members from working for the same school district. However, their obligation to remain impartial goes beyond the initial hiring process.

Even if the decision does not directly affect the public official’s family member, they may be prohibited from weighing in on certain actions involving lay-offs or terminations. For example, if a district needed to reduce their staff and one of the official’s family members worked in a department targeted for lay-offs, the public official should refrain from weighing in on those decisions. Even if they are not directly advocating for their family member to keep their position, the official’s actions could still “affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment” as the decision to lay off a different employee indirectly decreases the chances the family member will be affected by the lay-off.

The prohibitions of O.R.C. 102.03 serve the public interest in impartial government by preventing the creation of a situation which may impair the objectivity and impartiality of a public official in a matter affecting themself or a related party. Even if the public official is acting in good faith, the nature of the family relationship alone is enough to call into question the impartiality of their decision, and has the potential to undermine the public’s faith in the district. Prior to taking any employment-related action, district officials who have family members working in the same district need to consider whether the particular decision, even if it relates to another employee, could indirectly improve their family member’s own employment prospects.