State ex rel. Murray v. Ohio State Emp. Relations Bd.
2017 Ohio 839
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- David Murray, a Columbus police lieutenant, was terminated effective September 4, 2008 and grieved that termination under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Arbitration was requested but never held.
- After nearly two years of attempted arbitration and settlement negotiations, Murray filed a federal complaint on September 3, 2010 seeking reinstatement, back pay, benefits, damages, and to preserve statute-of-limitations issues. Counsel explained the federal filing was to preserve claims because arbitration had not been scheduled.
- Murray filed two ULP charges with SERB on January 18, 2011 (alleging failure to arbitrate) and two additional ULPs on December 21, 2011 (alleging a fraudulent settlement). SERB dismissed all four ULPs as untimely and denied reconsideration.
- Murray sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District to compel SERB to find the filings timely and issue ULP complaints. The magistrate recommended denial; the court adopted the magistrate’s decision and denied the writ.
- Central legal question: when the 90-day limitations period of R.C. 4117.12(B) begins to run for ULP charges based on alleged failure to arbitrate or improper settlement (i.e., when the charging party has knowledge and has suffered actual damage), and whether SERB abused its discretion in finding Murray’s charges untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 90-day limitations period start for ULPs alleging failure to arbitrate? | Murray: Filing the federal suit did not show actual damage; arbitration dates were still being discussed, so clock should start later (e.g., Nov. 9, 2010). | SERB/City/FOP: The federal complaint (Sept. 3, 2010) manifested knowledge of the alleged ULP and asserted damages, so the 90-day period began then. | Court: Agrees with SERB — federal filing demonstrated constructive knowledge and asserted damages; using Sept. 3, 2010 to start the 90-day period was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether filing for federal relief to preserve a forum precludes SERB from treating that filing as evidence of knowledge/damage for timeliness purposes | Murray: He filed federal suit only to preserve statute-of-limitations and to compel arbitration; he lacked actual damage then. | SERB/City/FOP: The federal complaint sought reinstatement/back pay/damages, showing Murray knew of injury and sought relief for it. | Court: The relief requested in the federal complaint shows Murray knew he suffered damage; SERB reasonably used that date to start the limitations clock. |
| Whether Murray’s June 23, 2011 awareness of an alleged settlement should be the start date for ULPs challenging the settlement | Murray: He learned the settlement had occurred on June 23, 2011 but argues he did not suffer actual damage until later (e.g., agreement executed Sept. 29, 2011); equitable tolling should apply. | SERB/City/FOP: Murray admitted learning of the settlement on June 23, 2011; he waited well beyond 90 days to file. | Court: Murray’s admission that he learned of the settlement on June 23, 2011 was sufficient to trigger the limitations period; no abuse of discretion in dismissing as untimely. |
| Whether SERB abused its discretion in dismissing the ULPs (mandamus standard) | Murray: SERB’s timeliness finding was arbitrary and failed to apply equitable tolling; judicial relief is warranted via mandamus. | SERB: Its calculation of the 90-day period is entitled to deference; no perversity of will or arbitrary decision shown. | Court: No abuse of discretion; mandamus relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257 (1988) (courts must defer to SERB’s interpretation of Chapter 4117).
- State Emp. Relations Bd. v. Miami Univ., 71 Ohio St.3d 351 (1994) (SERB’s calculation of limitation periods entitled to deference).
- State ex rel. Portage Lakes Edn. Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 95 Ohio St.3d 533 (2002) (mandamus standard—abuse of discretion defined).
- Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emp., Chapter 643, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 59 Ohio St.3d 159 (1991) (SERB’s decision whether to issue a complaint generally not reviewable under administrative appeal statutes).
- State Emp. Relations Bd. v. Ohio State Univ., 36 Ohio App.3d 1 (10th Dist. 1987) (90-day limitations period requires promptness; charging party must seek redress promptly).