2018 Ohio 3684
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Franklin County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) created a new nonbargaining civilian classification, Corrections Services Coordinator (CSC), in Jan 2014 to perform jail duties formerly done by deputies; CSCs signed forms acknowledging a one‑year probationary period and were treated as exempt/nonunion employees.
- The Union filed an SERB opt‑in request in Jan 2015; SERB certified the opt‑in in March 2015, adding CSCs to the bargaining unit.
- In mid‑2014 and June 2015, incidents involving a photograph taken by CSCs occurred; FCSO terminated four CSCs in June 2015 for misconduct.
- Parties executed a Contract Extension Agreement (CEA) on July 8, 2015, extending the 2013–2014 CBA during bargaining; the CBA provided a 120‑day probationary period for covered employees.
- The Union filed grievances; an arbitrator ruled the grievances arbitrable (finding the CEA retroactive and Article 16 applicable), held FCSO lacked just cause for two terminations and reduced discipline for the others, and reinstated all four with varied discipline.
- Franklin County Court of Common Pleas confirmed the arbitration awards; FCSO appealed to this court challenging arbitrability and the merits of the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FCSO) | Defendant's Argument (Union) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the grievances arbitrable? | Grievances not arbitrable because CSCs were hired after CBA expired and remained nonbargaining/exempt until parties negotiated terms; one‑year probation forms controlled. | CEA retroactively extended the 2013–14 CBA (including 120‑day probation) and SERB certification brought CSCs into the unit, so grievance raises contract interpretation and is arbitrable. | Arbitrator did not exceed authority; CEA reasonably read as retroactive and applied Article 16; grievance was arbitrable. |
| Did arbitrator improperly exclude evidence about successor negotiations? | Arbitrator abused discretion by excluding HR testimony and documents showing one‑year probation and negotiation context. | Evidence related to successor bargaining and was irrelevant to issues under the CEA and arbitration; exclusion was within arbitrator’s discretion. | Exclusion was a legal relevance determination within arbitrator’s province; no misconduct warranting vacatur. |
| Should the probationary period have been tolled until employer discovered misconduct? | Equitable tolling applies because misconduct occurred during probation but was discovered months later, so the one‑year standard should apply. | No active concealment; employer chose not to charge failure‑to‑report rule; tolling would negate the probationary period’s purpose. | Arbitrator reasonably declined to toll; no basis to extend probation beyond its normal end. |
| Did arbitrator exceed authority by substituting judgment on discipline (just cause)? | Arbitrator substituted his judgment for the sheriff’s and minimized serious misconduct, unlawfully reducing discipline. | Arbitrator properly applied just‑cause test: found insufficient factual basis for two discharges and excessive discipline for others, imposing corrective measures. | Award draws its essence from the CBA; arbitrator’s findings on fact and proportionality were permissible and not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Portage Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities v. Portage Cty. Educators' Assn. , 153 Ohio St.3d 219 (Ohio 2018) (appellate standard: accept factual findings not clearly erroneous; review legal questions de novo)
- Queen City Lodge No. 69 v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 1992) (award must draw its essence from the CBA; rational nexus test)
- Findlay Bd. of Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 129 (Ohio 1990) (public policy favors arbitration of labor disputes)
- State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators' Labor Council v. Cleveland, 113 Ohio St.3d 480 (Ohio 2007) (parties continuing to operate under an expired CBA may be bound by its terms when conduct indicates mutual intent to remain bound)
- Bd. of Trustees of Miami Twp. v. FOP, 81 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 1998) (arbitrator decides whether cause existed and whether discipline was appropriate under just‑cause standard)