2014 Ohio 3672
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Shaw served as Local 574 business manager from 1994 to 2010; compensation was set by an executive board process every three years, with member approval.
- 2007 recommendations provided Shaw a $1,800/week salary and 4% annual increases, plus severance pay of one week per year served.
- 2010 recommendations reduced pay to $1,350/week and did not mention severance; Shaw altered the effective date to June 14, 2010.
- Executive Board in May 2010 approved severance for other officers; Shaw did not seek severance for himself; he later paid himself a severance without formal board approval.
- Gary Bretz took office June 14, 2010; after that, Local 574 stopped severance payments to Shaw; Shaw sued Local 574 for breach of contract, while Local 574 counterclaimed for tampering with records; the trial court granted Shaw summary judgment on breach and dismissed tampering counts, and Local 574 appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shaw’s severance pay entitlement was governed by the 2007 contract terms. | Shaw was entitled to severance under the 2007 recommendations for the 2007-2010 term. | The 2010 recommendations superseded the 2007 terms; severance was eliminated. | The 2007 terms governed Shaw’s last two weeks; 2010 terms did not apply retroactively to that term. |
| Whether Local 574’s tampering-with-records claims support civil damages under R.C. 2307.60. | Local 574 suffered damages due to Shaw’s alleged tampering. | Criminal tampering claims cannot be pursued as civil damages under R.C. 2307.60; no injury shown. | Civil damages under R.C. 2307.60 were not shown; claims for tampering with records were properly dismissed. |
| Whether the case was preempted by § 301 of the LMRA and thus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Shaw’s claim relied on a Union Constitution and was LMRA §301 preempted. | Preemption applies; the claim relies on internal union matters. | Shaw’s claim did not rely on the Constitution; not preempted; denial of dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether extrinsic evidence or constitutional provisions altered the contract interpretation of Shaw’s term. | The contract length and severance rights were fixed by the 2007 document; extrinsic evidence not needed. | The Constitution could modify compensation during a term. | The 2007 recommendations governed Shaw’s term; 2010 terms did not apply; no error from extrinsic evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langfan v. Carlton Gardens Co., 183 Ohio App.3d 260 (Ohio App.3d 2009) (breach of contract elements; contract interpretation)
- Kaczkowski v. Ohio N. Univ., 2006-Ohio-2373 (3d Dist. 2006) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (summary judgment requires caution; resolve all doubts in nonmoving party's favor)
- Welco Indus., Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (1993) (summary judgment standard; evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Reinbolt v. Gloor, 146 Ohio App.3d 661 (3d Dist. 2001) (burden shifting in Civ.R.56; strictness of proof)