State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn. v. State (Slip Opinion)
146 Ohio St. 3d 315
| Ohio | 2016Background
- H.B. 153 (2011) was Ohio’s biennial budget for 2012–2013 and included provisions authorizing private operation, management, and sale of specified state correctional facilities and amendments to R.C. 9.06 (the "prison-privatization provisions").
- Two private companies acted under the law: Management & Training Corporation (MTC) contracted to operate North Central Correctional Institution; Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) purchased Lake Erie Correctional Facility and entered a related operating contract.
- OCSEA (the state employees’ union), former employees, and advocacy groups sued in Franklin County Common Pleas asserting: (1) H.B. 153 violates Ohio’s one-subject rule; (2) the Lake Erie sale contract’s $3.8M annual ownership fee is an unconstitutional subsidy in violation of Article VIII, §4; and (3) employees of privatized prisons are public employees under R.C. 4117.01(C).
- Trial court dismissed OCSEA’s complaint (Civ.R. 12[B][6] and 12[B][1]); the Tenth District reversed on the whole-bill one-subject claim and remanded for evidentiary hearing but affirmed dismissal of the Article VIII claim and the public-employee declaratory claim. The Supreme Court accepted review.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo (12[B][1] and 12[B][6]) and applied the presumption of constitutionality for challenged statutes; it evaluated (a) whether H.B. 153 (or its privatization parts) violated the one-subject rule, (b) whether the annual fee was an unconstitutional subsidy under Article VIII, §4, and (c) whether common pleas courts or SERB have jurisdiction to decide public-employee status under R.C. 4117.01(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 153 (entire bill) violates the one-subject rule | OCSEA: bill contains unrelated provisions not tied to appropriations | State: primary subject is appropriations; diverse provisions germane to budget | Held: No — primary subject is appropriations; whole-bill challenge fails |
| Whether prison-privatization provisions violate one-subject rule | OCSEA: privatization provisions are unrelated add-ons | State: provisions reduce expenditures and generate revenue — germane to budget | Held: No — privatization and sale provisions relate to state expenditures/revenue and are germane |
| Whether the $3.8M annual ownership fee in Lake Erie sale is an unconstitutional subsidy (Art. VIII, §4) | OCSEA: fee is a subsidy/loan of state credit or impermissible joinder of public/private rights | State/CCA: fee functions like lease/payment; sale valid; record insufficient | Held: No claim pleaded — OCSEA failed to allege sufficient facts; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether common pleas court has jurisdiction to declare MTC/CCA employees public employees under R.C. 4117.01(C) | OCSEA: R.C. 9.06(E) and declaratory relief allow trial-court resolution of employee status | State: SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising from R.C. Chapter 4117 | Held: SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over status claim because it "arises from or depends on" collective-bargaining rights in R.C. Chapter 4117; common pleas lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste, 11 Ohio St.3d 141 (one-subject rule requires identifying primary subject; invalidation only for manifestly gross and fraudulent violation)
- State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (liberal construction of "subject" and severability analysis; severe outcomes where no primary subject can be carved out)
- ComTech Sys., Inc. v. Limbach, 59 Ohio St.3d 96 (appropriations bills may include provisions that fund or relate to other operations described in the bill)
- Franklin Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 59 Ohio St.3d 167 (SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters committed to it under R.C. Chapter 4117; remedies in chapter are exclusive where claims arise from collective-bargaining rights)
- State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 127 Ohio St.3d 131 (reiterates Sutula/Franklin test: SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction applies when claims arise from or depend on collective-bargaining rights)
- Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 48 Ohio St.3d 45 and 66 Ohio St.3d 466 (discusses when public-employer status questions fall under SERB’s jurisdiction and when declaratory actions may be premature)