State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union No. 436 v. Board of County Commissioners
194 Ohio App. 3d 258
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- BOCC enacted a November 2008 ERIP, excluding Sanitary Engineering Division (SED) from participation.
- BOCC created a separate employing unit titled “BOCC, excluding the SED” for ERIP purposes.
- SED employees grievance challenged exclusion; hearing held and grievance denied.
- Relators filed December 2009 actions including declaratory judgment, taxpayer suit, TRO, and mandamus requests.
- Trial court granted declaratory judgment but denied injunctive relief and mandamus; held BOCC violated R.C. 145.297 by excluding SED.
- BOCC appealed on four assignments; majority affirmed, noting mootness of TRO; dissent disagreed on exhaustion and standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under a taxpayer action | Lesh et al. have public-right standing. | Relators lack special public-right interest; no standing. | Relators have standing; public interests implicated. |
| Whether the TRO was properly issued | TRO complied with Civ.R. 65(D) and was proper. | Order deficiencies; but moot as TRO expired with declaratory relief. | Moot; TRO issue can be considered over. |
| Whether BOCC illegally excluded relators from ERIP under R.C. 145.297 | Designation of subordinate unit violated 145.297; SED must be included. | BOCC may designate separate employing units under statute. | BOCC violated 145.297 by excluding SED; proper employing unit is the entire BOCC. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Administrative remedies exhausted or not required due to futility. | Relators should have appealed under Chapter 2506 before suit. | Exhaustion not required; futility and timely timing support proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fisher v. Cleveland, 109 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 2006) (taxpayer action proper when public-right interest implicated)
- State ex rel. White v. Cleveland, 34 Ohio St.2d 37 (Ohio 1973) (standing when public rights are implicated; private benefit limits relief)
- State ex rel. Caspar v. Dayton, 53 Ohio St.3d 16 (Ohio 1990) (taxpayer action requires public-right benefit)
- Cleveland ex rel. O’Malley v. White, 148 Ohio App.3d 564 (Ohio 2002) (unions lacking standing when aim is private benefit; public-right requirement varies by context)
- State ex rel. Fisher v. Cleveland, 109 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 2006) (see above (public-right benefit to sustain taxpayer action))
- State ex rel. Lieux v. Westlake, 154 Ohio St. 412 (Ohio 1951) (exhaustion of administrative remedies generally required)
- Noernberg v. Brook Park, 63 Ohio St.2d 26 (Ohio 1980) (exhaustion doctrine prerequisites and exceptions)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1988) (exhaustion exceptions for lack of administrative remedy or futility)
- Clagg v. Baycliffs Corp., 82 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 1998) (administrative-remedies exhaustion in declaratory/injunction context)
- State ex rel. Simeone v. Niles, 2008-Ohio-7000 (Ohio 2008) (public-right considerations in taxpayer actions)