Bd. of Trumbull Cnty. Comm'rs v. Gatti, 100 N.E.3d 68

Background

Robert Gatti, a Trumbull County Engineer’s Office employee and AFSCME member, was on workers’ compensation leave from Oct. 20, 2008 to Feb. 14, 2011 and received employer-advanced hospitalization insurance benefits under the applicable CBA.
The CBA required employees on prolonged workers’ compensation to pay a proportionate share of insurance premiums; appellees calculated Gatti owed $10,500.64 and Gatti paid $185.05, leaving $10,315.59 unpaid.
In 2015 the Board of Trumbull County Commissioners sued Gatti in common pleas court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment to recover the unpaid premium share.
Gatti moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because SERB (under R.C. Chapter 4117) had exclusive jurisdiction and that arbitration under the CBA foreclosed court resolution; the trial court denied that motion.
Discovery requests for admission were served, deemed admitted after Gatti failed to respond, and the employer submitted an affidavit corroborating the unpaid amount; the trial court granted summary judgment for appellees for $10,315.59.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the common pleas court had subject-matter jurisdiction over breach-of-CBA reimbursement claims	Commissioners: The claim is a breach-of-contract/unjust-enrichment claim independent of R.C. Chapter 4117 and thus properly in common pleas court	Gatti: SERB has exclusive original jurisdiction over matters arising from or dependent on collective-bargaining rights under R.C. Chapter 4117	Court: Jurisdiction proper in common pleas court because the reimbursement right is contractual and not a remedy created by R.C. Chapter 4117; SERB exclusivity did not apply
Whether arbitration under the CBA was the exclusive remedy	Commissioners: The employer’s suit is an enforcement action, not a grievance	Gatti: The CBA’s grievance/arbitration clause governs and thus precludes court suit	Court: The CBA’s grievance definition covers alleged employer failures; here employer sued employee, so the dispute was not a “grievance” subject to arbitration
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given deemed admissions and affidavit evidence	Commissioners: Deemed admissions and fiscal affidavit establish unpaid balance; no genuine factual dispute	Gatti: Existence of a “law-of-the-shop” custom (other employee not required to pay) creates triable issues	Court: Deemed admissions plus affidavit establish liability; isolated prior practice does not establish a binding custom or avoid unambiguous CBA terms, so summary judgment proper
Whether an isolated past failure to collect from another employee creates a material factual dispute	Commissioners: No; isolated instance does not create institutional custom to override clear CBA terms	Gatti: That past practice shows inconsistent application and raises factual issues	Court: Waived below and, on the merits, insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (discusses nature of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Brecksville Edn. Assn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 74 Ohio St.3d 665 (creation and limits of SERB)
State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emp. Assn. v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 315 (2016) (tests for SERB exclusivity when claims arise from or depend on R.C. Chapter 4117)
State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 76 Ohio St.3d 287 (explains when common pleas lack jurisdiction due to unfair labor practice basis)
Franklin Co. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 59 Ohio St.3d 167 (right to raise claims independent of R.C. Chapter 4117 in common pleas where appropriate)
State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 127 Ohio St.3d 131 (addresses scope of SERB jurisdiction)
Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (summary judgment evidence weighing rules)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. v. United Steelworkers, 363 U.S. 574 (law-of-the-shop concept in labor context)