127 N.E.3d 377
Oh. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Morrow2018Background
- Two bus drivers (Myles and Manning) were hired on August 8, 2016 under one‑year limited classified contracts that expired August 31, 2017.
- The Board sent written notice (May 11, 2017) informing each it did not intend to reemploy them; the union (UE) filed grievances and demanded arbitration.
- The union sued seeking a declaratory judgment that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requires "just cause" for non‑renewal and that grievances are subject to final and binding arbitration; the Board refused arbitration, citing state law.
- The CBA (covering 2015–2018) contains general provisions recognizing classified employees, a severability clause, a compliance clause saying individual contracts are subject to the CBA, and Article 36: "no employee shall be disciplined or discharged except for just cause."
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Board, finding the CBA did not specifically address limited non‑renewals and R.C. 3319.081/.083 governed non‑renewal; union appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CBA preempts R.C. 3319.081/.083 for non‑renewal of limited non‑teaching contracts | CBA (Art. 36, §§2.02,3.01,12.01) specifies terms and requires "just cause," so it supersedes statutes under R.C. 4117.10(A) | CBA contains only general language; it does not specifically address limited contracts/renewal, so statutes govern | Held for Defendant: CBA lacks the requisite specificity to preempt R.C. 3319.081/.083; statutes apply |
| Whether non‑renewal is a disciplinary "discharge" covered by Article 36 (just‑cause) | Non‑renewal is a termination/discharge and thus must meet CBA just‑cause requirement | Non‑renewal of a limited contract is a discretionary, no‑fault action distinct from fault‑based discipline or discharge | Held for Defendant: Article 36 governs fault‑based discipline/discharge only; non‑renewal is distinct and not covered |
| Whether grievances over non‑renewal are arbitrable (presumption of arbitrability) | Presumption favors arbitration; thus grievances are arbitrable under the CBA grievance procedure | Presumption is rebuttable; statutory scheme for limited contracts rebuts presumption here | Held for Defendant: Presumption rebutted; grievances not arbitrable for non‑renewal governed by statute |
| Whether declaratory relief should issue that CBA provides just‑cause and arbitration rights for limited contract employees | Union seeks declaratory judgment that CBA requires just cause and arbitration for limited contract employees | Board contends statutes control; no declaratory relief warranted | Held for Defendant: No declaratory judgment; trial court properly denied union's requested relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Clark v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., 48 Ohio St.3d 19, 548 N.E.2d 940 (1990) (CBA must specifically address an issue to preempt statutory rights)
- Bashford v. City of Portsmouth, 52 Ohio St.3d 195, 556 N.E.2d 477 (1990) (cannot infer preemption from general CBA language)
- Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 162, 630 N.E.2d 725 (1994) (statute governs absent specific CBA provision to the contrary)
- State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 71 Ohio St.3d 26, 641 N.E.2d 188 (1994) (CBA does not prevail where it does not specifically cover the matter)
- State ex rel. Ohio Assn. of Pub. Sch. Emp./AFSCME v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 89 Ohio St.3d 191, 729 N.E.2d 743 (2000) (general layoff language does not preempt statutory rights under R.C. 3319.081)
- State ex rel. Tempesta v. City of Warren, 128 Ohio St.3d 463, 946 N.E.2d 208 (2011) (CBA must explicitly demonstrate intent to preempt statutory rights)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987) (standard of review for summary judgment)