2020 Ohio 3120
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Union (Amalgamated Transit Union Local 268) and GCRTA dispute terms of a successor to the 2014 collective bargaining agreement, which expired July 2017.
- The Union invoked paragraph 9 of a 1975 federal section 13(c) protective agreement requiring submission of unresolved labor disputes to a board of arbitration “in the event of any labor dispute not otherwise governed by law.”
- In 2017 GCRTA notified SERB that no MAD had been adopted and that R.C. Chapter 4117 procedures govern; the Union filed a competing notice asserting a MAD.
- SERB appointed a mediator under R.C. 4117.14; Union later demanded interest arbitration and GCRTA refused, asserting state statutory procedures control.
- In March 2019 the Union sued in Cuyahoga Common Pleas to compel arbitration under the section 13(c) agreement and to declare it a MAD; GCRTA moved under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Trial court dismissed; on appeal the Eighth District affirmed, holding the dispute arises from/depends on R.C. Chapter 4117 and therefore falls within SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Union’s petition to compel interest arbitration falls within SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction under R.C. Chapter 4117 | Section 13(c) creates an independent arbitration right (or is a mutually agreed dispute procedure/MAD) that the common pleas court can enforce | R.C. Chapter 4117 governs successor-contract disputes; the Union’s claims arise from/ depend on collective-bargaining rights created by Chapter 4117, so SERB has exclusive jurisdiction | Court held claims fall within SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether R.C. 4117.10 and R.C. 306.12 carve out a mandatory exception preserving enforcement of section 13(c) arbitration in common pleas court | Those statutes preserve and require enforcement of section 13(c) arbitration, removing the matter from SERB | The statutes are permissive and R.C. 4117 otherwise prevails; they do not obligate enforcement of 13(c) arbitration outside SERB | Court held the statutes do not displace R.C. 4117 or SERB’s exclusivity; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 127 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 2010) (SERB has exclusive jurisdiction when claims arise from or depend on R.C. Chapter 4117)
- State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn. v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 315 (Ohio 2016) (questions whether employees are public employees and other matters ‘‘depend entirely’’ on R.C. Chapter 4117, over which SERB has exclusive jurisdiction)
- Jackson Transit Auth. v. Local Div. 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, 457 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1982) (section 13(c) agreements protect employees but do not supplant state labor law)
- Franklin Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 59 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 1991) (articulated test that SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters committed to it by R.C. Chapter 4117)
- Finocchi v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 85 Ohio App.3d 572 (8th Dist. 1993) (section 13(c) agreements preserve status quo; not meant to create new bargaining rights)
- United Transp. Union v. Brock, 815 F.2d 1562 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section 13(c) assurances do not create collective-bargaining rights beyond pre-existing state law)
- Local Div. 589, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 666 F.2d 618 (1st Cir. 1981) (state law may modify section 13(c) assurances without unfairness)