State ex rel. Casey v. Brown, 2022 Ohio 2843

The City of Youngstown and IAFF Local 312 are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering promotions and a four‑step grievance procedure culminating in final, binding arbitration.
In 2019 the City eliminated three Battalion Chief positions by ordinance; SERB found that elimination to be an unfair labor practice and ordered the City to reconstitute positions and restore affected personnel with back pay; the City’s appeals were resolved adversely to it.
After a Battalion Chief retired, the Civil Service Commission held a promotional exam (eligibility list issued Oct. 5, 2021) on which Capt. John Casey ranked first; the Fire Chief told Casey the City did not intend to promote to fill the vacancy.
Casey filed a grievance under the CBA asserting a contractual right to be appointed; the Mayor’s designee issued a Step 3 decision rejecting the grievance (Feb. 2, 2022). The Union declined to advance the grievance to arbitration due to a related arbitrator’s earlier ruling affecting another member and the eligibility list.
Casey filed an original action for a writ of mandamus seeking appointment and back pay from City officials; the City moved to dismiss. The court held the CBA grievance/arbitration procedure was an adequate, exclusive remedy under R.C. Chapter 4117 and denied the writ, noting Casey could pursue a separate unfair‑representation charge against the Union before SERB.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is mandamus available to compel appointment/promotions covered by the CBA?	Casey: mandamus required because City refused to appoint him despite being top of list.	City: CBA grievance/arbitration is exclusive remedy; mandamus is extraordinary.	Denied — mandamus not available because CBA/ARBITRATION is exclusive remedy.
Does R.C. 4117.10 make the CBA grievance/arbitration the exclusive remedy?	Casey: not adequate here because Union refused arbitration.	City: R.C. 4117.10 + CBA language make grievance/arbitration exclusive.	Held — yes; the CBA procedure is the exclusive remedy.
Does the Union’s refusal to arbitrate render the contractual remedy inadequate?	Casey: Union’s decision foreclosed his remedy, making mandamus appropriate.	City: Casey had access to and exhausted the grievance process; Union conduct does not make remedy against City inadequate.	Held — Union’s refusal does not render the CBA remedy inadequate as to City officials.
Could Casey pursue other remedies?	Casey: sought judicial relief instead of relying on Union.	City: he could file an unfair‑representation/unfair‑labor charge with SERB.	Held — SERB charge against the Union is an available remedy; mandamus still denied.

State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153 (2012) (elements and standards for mandamus relief)
State ex rel. Nichols v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 72 Ohio St.3d 205 (1995) (failure to obtain relief in arbitration or civil‑service appeals does not render those remedies inadequate)
State ex rel. Walker v. Lancaster City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 79 Ohio St.3d 216 (1997) (grievance/arbitration under a CBA generally provides an adequate remedy that precludes mandamus)
Franklin Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police Capital City Lodge No. 9, 59 Ohio St.3d 167 (1991) (Chapter 4117 provides a comprehensive scheme for public‑sector labor disputes)
State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2008) (standard for ruling on a motion to dismiss mandamus complaint)
State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 (2014) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised with caution)