2014 Ohio 4119
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- CBA in force 2009–2012 covers wages, hours, and employment terms for TPCOA members.
- City enacted Ordinance 103-10 (Mar. 30, 2010) unilaterally altering pension pick-up and health-premium contributions.
- TPCOA filed grievances alleging violation of the CBA’s pension, health, and wage provisions; City refused arbitration.
- Me Too Letter of Understanding (Aug. 13, 2009) obligates city to offer greater benefits to TPCOA if provided to other units.
- TPCOA also filed unfair labor practice charges with SERB (Apr–May 2010) challenging the unilateral changes.
- Trial court granted arbitration on Counts One–Three and dismissed Count Four; City appealed seeking dismissal/arbitration limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over Counts One and Three. | TPCOA seeks arbitration under the CBA; SERB exclusive jurisdiction is implicated. | City argues SERB exclusive jurisdiction governs the exigent-circumstances defense and unilateral changes. | Partial: Counts One and Three arbitrability limited by SERB outcome; not wholly barred. |
| Whether Count Two (Me Too grievance) is arbitrable under the CBA. | Me Too grievance falls within CBA arbitration and is not tied to exigent-circumstances. | Me Too grievance concerns contract interpretation; may be non-arbitrable. | Arbitrable under the CBA; arbitrator to interpret the Me Too provision. |
| Whether the court properly compelled arbitration and/or granted summary judgment. | Partial reversal: order to arbitrate counts One–Three affirmed subject to limitations; remand for clarified arbitrator authority. | ||
| Whether the Me Too arbitration does not impermissibly address SERB-determined issues. | No bar; Me Too grievance is arbitrable and not dependent on SERB’s exigent-circumstances ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9, 59 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 1991) (exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration interplay in Chapter 4117)
- E. Cleveland v. E. Cleveland Firefighters Local 500, I.A.F.F., 70 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 1994) (arbitration not foreclosed by SERB exclusivity over unfair labor practices)
- State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 127 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 2010) (SERB exclusive jurisdiction framework for Chapter 4117 rights)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (Supreme Court 1986) (arb. clause interpretive principles; arbitrability presumption)
- Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court 1960) ( Steelworkers Trilogy principles; contract-based arbitration)
- Council of Smaller Ents. v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 661 (Ohio 1988) (four guiding principles for arbitrability)