Fairland Assn. of Classroom Teachers v. Fairland Local Bd. of Edn.
2017 Ohio 1098
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellants (the Fairland teachers' association and teacher John McClung) sued the Fairland Local School District Board of Education alleging breaches of their collective-bargaining agreement: (1) failure to notify McClung by April 30 of nonrenewal of a supplemental athletic-director contract (notice delivered May 5), and (2) grievance denial letter delivered by the board treasurer instead of the board president as required.
- McClung filed a timely grievance; the grievance was denied in writing in June 2014. Appellants sought breach-of-contract and declaratory relief in Lawrence County Common Pleas Court.
- Board moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from R.C. Chapter 4117. Magistrate granted dismissal; appellants filed untimely objections. Trial court affirmed dismissal and this appeal followed.
- Central legal question: whether the common pleas court had jurisdiction over contract/declaratory claims that arise from or depend on public-employee collective-bargaining rights under R.C. Chapter 4117, or whether jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the State Employment Relations Board (SERB).
- The Fourth District held the claims arise from or depend on R.C. Chapter 4117 rights (they concern collectively bargained terms, grievance procedures, and notice obligations) and thus SERB has exclusive jurisdiction; the dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment claims arising from the parties' collective bargaining agreement | Appellants: common pleas may hear suits enforcing CBAs under R.C. 4117.09(B)(1); their claims are contractual and properly filed in common pleas | Board: claims arise from or depend on Chapter 4117 collective-bargaining rights and are within SERB's exclusive jurisdiction | Held: Claims arise from/depend on R.C. Chapter 4117; SERB has exclusive jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether failure to timely object to the magistrate's decision (and alleged Civ.R. 53 noncompliance) precludes appellate review | Appellants: magistrate did not provide required conspicuous notice under Civ.R. 53, so they should not be barred from appeal | Board: objections were untimely; issues waived; no plain error | Held: Because subject-matter jurisdiction is nonwaivable, court declined separate Civ.R. 53 analysis and resolved case on jurisdictional grounds in favor of Board |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. Sutula, 937 N.E.2d 88 (Ohio 2010) (SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that arise from or depend on R.C. Chapter 4117)
- Franklin Cnty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Franklin Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 572 N.E.2d 87 (Ohio 1991) (remedies in R.C. Chapter 4117 are exclusive when claims depend on those collective-bargaining rights)
- E. Cleveland v. E. Cleveland Firefighters Local 500, I.A.F.F., 637 N.E.2d 878 (Ohio 1994) (cautioning that SERB jurisdiction should not eviscerate arbitration provisions; arbitration under a valid CBA may preclude SERB intervention)
- Carter v. Trotwood–Madison City Bd. of Edn., 910 N.E.2d 1088 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2009) (persuasive appellate authority finding SERB exclusive jurisdiction where rights asserted would not exist absent the CBA and Chapter 4117)
- State ex rel. Brecksville Edn. Assn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 660 N.E.2d 1199 (Ohio 1996) (discussing SERB as an agency created by statute and limited to statutory powers)