2011 Ohio 1558
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Yoder was terminated for failing a fitness-for-duty evaluation after prior discipline for unprofessional behavior toward a Parks Department employee.
- The Union filed a grievance; the first grievance went to arbitration, the second (the focus here) followed and was disputed.
- City refused to arbitrate the second grievance, arguing it fell under Civil Service Rules rather than the CBA arbitration procedure.
- The trial court denied the Union’s summary-judgment motion and granted the City’s, dismissing the complaint as non-arbitrable.
- The Union challenged arbitrability; the court of appeals reversed, holding the exclusionary Civil Service language did not explicitly bar arbitration of this grievance.
- The case remanded for arbitration consistent with the opinion, with costs taxed to the appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Yoder termination grievance arbitrable under the CBA? | Yoder | Stow | Yes; arbitrability presumption applies and exclusion is not explicit. |
| Does the Civil Service Rules exclusion explicitly bar arbitration? | Union argues no explicit exclusion | City argues exclusion applies | Not explicit enough; burden on City not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Council of Smaller Enterprises v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 661 (1998) (presumption of arbitrability; determining arbitrability is judicial, not merits-based)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitration coverage should be interpreted in favor of coverage)
- Toledo Police Patrolman’s Ass’n, Local 10 v. City of Toledo, 127 Ohio App.3d 450 (1998) (burden to show contract excludes dispute from arbitration)