2014 Ohio 2790
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- David Murray, a Columbus Police lieutenant and FOP member, was fired in 2008 for allegedly disclosing confidential information and pursued a grievance under the collective-bargaining agreement seeking arbitration.
- Murray sued the City and officials in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of due process by delay/interference with arbitration; FOP counsel participated in a federal status conference claiming a settlement had been reached.
- Murray later learned (he alleges) the settlement was not finalized until June/July 2011; he resigned under the settlement in October 2011 and amended his federal complaint to add FOP and its president.
- Murray filed SERB complaints alleging unfair labor practices that were dismissed as untimely; he then sued in Franklin County Common Pleas (five-count complaint: fraud, conspiracy, breach of settlement, etc.).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Civ.R. 12(B)(1)) and failure to state a claim (Civ.R. 12(B)(6)); trial court dismissed; Murray appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Murray’s claims arose from or depended on rights under R.C. Chapter 4117 and therefore fell within SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murray's fraud and related claims fall outside SERB jurisdiction | Murray: claims are common-law fraud/civil conspiracy and breach of settlement enforceable in common pleas | Defendants: alleged conduct arises from collective-bargaining/union duties and unfair labor practices, so SERB has exclusive jurisdiction | Held: Claims arise from R.C. Chapter 4117 unfair-practice/duty-of-fair-representation issues; SERB has exclusive jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether FOP breached duty of fair representation (and thus whether common-law fraud can be proven independently) | Murray: FOP misrepresented settlement timing to federal court and deceived him, supporting fraud and conspiracy claims | Defendants: Allegations, if true, show bad faith/dishonesty by union—squarely a duty-of-fair-representation/unfair-practice matter for SERB | Held: Union conduct, if proven, would constitute unfair representation under R.C. 4117.11(B)(6); common-law fraud claims cannot be proven without establishing that unfair-practice basis; therefore within SERB jurisdiction |
| Whether the City can be liable for causing/attempting to cause unfair practices | Murray: City’s participation in representations supports fraud/conspiracy and breach-of-settlement claims in court | Defendants: Employer conduct alleged (causing or participating in union’s misconduct) is addressed by R.C. 4117 and SERB | Held: Employer allegations fit R.C. 4117.11(A)(8) and are within SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether breach-of-settlement/back-pay claim is cognizable in common pleas | Murray: as a purported third-party beneficiary he can sue for back-pay in common pleas | Defendants: Settlement arising from collective-bargaining procedures remains subject to grievance/SERB; common pleas lacks jurisdiction | Held: Settlement disputes arising from collective-bargaining processes are within SERB/grievance procedures; dismissal of breach claim affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 76 Ohio St.3d 287 (1996) (explaining SERB's exclusive jurisdiction over R.C. Chapter 4117 matters)
- Franklin Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9, 59 Ohio St.3d 167 (1991) (Chapter 4117 remedies are exclusive where claims arise from collective bargaining rights)
- State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 127 Ohio St.3d 131 (2010) (SERB's exclusive jurisdiction extends to Chapter 4117 in its entirety)
- E. Cleveland v. E. Cleveland Firefighters Local 500, I.A.F.F., 70 Ohio St.3d 125 (1994) (common-pleas complaints alleging conduct that constitutes unfair labor practices fall within SERB)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (duty of fair representation standard informing unfair-representation analysis)
- Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (1976) (hybrid suits concept where employee sues employer and union for contract and representation violations)
- Mains v. LTV Steel Co., 89 Fed.Appx. 911 (6th Cir. 2003) (applying Vaca standards—showing union conduct was arbitrary, dishonest, bad faith, discriminatory, and materially affected grievance outcome)