583 N.E.2d 1324 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1989
Appellants, Phyllis E. Gunn et al., appeal the trial court's decision which granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of appellees, Euclid Teachers Association et al. Upon review of the record provided herein, we affirm.
This action commenced when appellants filed an unfair labor practice charge against appellees alleging that the Euclid Teachers Association had breached its duty of fair representation in violation of R.C.
SERB conducted an investigation of the charges filed in appellants' complaint, and on January 27, 1987, they dismissed the claims based upon their determination that no probable cause existed to substantiate the charge of unfair labor practice on the part of appellees. Appellants then filed an *314
administrative appeal from that decision pursuant to R.C.
Appellees filed motions to dismiss which asserted that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter since SERB's administrative action of dismissing the unfair labor practice charge for lack of probable cause was not a final order subject to review under R.C.
This timely appeal followed, and puts forth five assignments of error.
"I. The common pleas court's error and abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal of SERB's arbitrary and capricious final order of dismissal of appellant's unfair labor practice charge further denied appellants' rights to due process of law.
"II. The common pleas court erred and abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal of SERB's dismissal ordered contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and without support of substantial evidence.
"III. The common pleas court erred and abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal of SERB's dismissal order which was not in accordance with law.
"IV. The common pleas court abused its discretion to the manifest prejudice of appellants in dismissing appellants' appeal by ordering a briefing schedule and requiring that appellants' brief supporting assignments of error be filed without requiring that appellees' reply brief be filed prior to its final order.
"V. The common pleas court erred and abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal of SERB's dismissal order which was the result of improper and unlawful SERB investigation, deliberation, and release of its record of appellants' unfair labor charges."
Appellants' five assignments of error raise various issues relative to the dismissal of the action filed in the trial court. The substance of these issues range from questions in the area of constitutional law to arguments that involve contentions that SERB's actions were arbitrary and capricious. However, for purposes of appellate review in this case, we must establish whether the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper.
It is axiomatic that there is no right to appeal from a decision of an administrative agency, except as provided by statute. Dinner Bell Meats, Inc. v. Bd. of Revision (1982),
"Any person aggrieved by any final order of the board granting or denying, in whole or in part, the relief sought may appeal to the court of common pleas of any county where the unfair labor practice in question was alleged to have been engaged in, or where the person resides or transacts business, by filing in the court a notice of appeal setting forth the order appealed from and the grounds of appeal. The court shall cause a copy of the notice to be served forthwith upon the board. Within ten days after the court receives a notice of appeal, the board shall file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the proceedings, certified by the board, including the pleading and evidence upon which the order appealed from was entered. * * *"
The question before this court is whether the investigatory act conducted by SERB in response to appellants' claim of unfair labor practices constitutes a "final order" for purpose of R.C.
"Every final order, adjudication, or decision of any officer, tribunal, authority, board, bureau, commission, department, or other division of any political subdivision of the state may be reviewed by the court of common pleas of the county in which the principal office of the political subdivision is located as provided in Chapter 2505. of the Revised Code, except as modified by this chapter.
"The appeal provided in this chapter is in addition to any other remedy of appeal provided by law.
"A `final order, adjudication, or decision' means an order, adjudication, or decision that determines rights, duties, privileges, benefits, or legal relationships of a person, but does not include any order, adjudication, or decision from which an appeal is granted by rule, ordinance, or statute to a higher administrative authority if a right to a hearing on such appeal is provided, or any order, adjudication, or decision that is issued preliminary to or as a result of a criminal proceeding."
In M.J. Kelley Co. v. Cleveland (1972),
In this case, SERB's function amounted to an investigation of a complaint that appellees had violated the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, which constituted an unfair labor practice. As such, SERB's initial statutory duty was to determine whether appellants' charges were supported by probable cause and warranted the issuance of a complaint. R.C.
SERB's actions pursuant to R.C.
In the absence of a finding of probable cause by SERB, their decision cannot be deemed quasi-judicial in nature. Moreover, decisions which are carried out pursuant to statutory investigations without a hearing are not considered "adjudicative orders." R.C.
While R.C.
Appellants cite South Community, Inc. v. State Emp. RelationsBd. (1988),
While we accept the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in that case, we find appellants' interpretation and application of it to be misplaced.
The South Community, Inc. decision explained that SERB is an agency subject generally to R.C. Chapter 119. However, R.C.
The language of R.C.
The right to appeal provided for by R.C.
Accordingly, appellants had no right to judicial review of SERB's determination. An investigatory function of an administrative agency cannot be appealed where a final order does not exist for purposes of R.C.
The trial court's decision to dismiss the instant action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MATIA and NAHRA, JJ., concur.