THE STATE EX REL. BRECKSVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, OEA/NEA, v. STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL.
No. 95-576
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Submitted October 10, 1995—Decided March 1, 1996
74 Ohio St.3d 665 | 1996-Ohio-310 | 660 N.E.2d 1199
Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 doеs not deprive the State Employment Relations Board of jurisdiction to consider a petition jointly filed by an employer and an exclusive bargaining representative requesting SERB to amend the composition of a deemed certified bargaining unit. (Ohio Council 8, Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emp., AFL-CIO v. Cincinnati [1994], 69 Ohio St.3d 677, 635 N.E.2d 361, distinguished.)
IN MANDAMUS.
{¶ 1} Relator, Brecksville Education Association (“BEA“), is the deemed certified collective bargaining agent for teachers employed by the Brecksville-Broadview Heights Board of Education (“board“).1 No challenge to BEA‘s
{¶ 2} The board is an Ohio Public Employer as defined by
{¶ 3} Respondent State Employment Relations Board (“SERB“) is an agency of the state of Ohio created by
{¶ 4} On January 1, 1985, BEA and the board entered their first contract subsequent tо passage of the Act. The contract recognized BEA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit composed of teachers and certain other employees, but specifically excluded substitute teachers and tutors. BEA and the board subsequently entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements which continued the exclusion of tutors from the bargaining unit.
{¶ 5} Following our decisions in State ex rel. Brown v. Milton-Union Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 21, 531 N.E.2d 1297, and State ex rel. Tavenner v. Indian Lake Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 88, 578 N.E.2d 464, holding that tutors were teachers entitled to compensation under duly adopted teachers’ salary schedules, BEA and the board executed a collective bargaining agreement effective January 1, 1994, which included small group instruction teachers, formerly known as tutors, in the bargaining unit represented by BEA. A total of ten tutors were affected by this modification.
{¶ 6} After reaching agreement on the terms of the 1994 contract, BEA and the board jointly petitioned SERB to amend the bargaining unit to include tutors in accord with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. SERB declined jurisdiction, citing Ohio Council 8, Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emp., AFL-CIO v. Cincinnati (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 677, 635 N.E.2d 361, and therefore made no determination on the merits of the petition. BEA responded by filing the present action requesting this court to grant a writ of mandamus that would compel SERB to exercise jurisdiction over the joint petition.
Cloppert, Portman, Sauter, Latanick & Foley and Mark A. Foley, for relator.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Vincent L. Lombardo, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent State Employment Relations Board.
Flanagan, Blackie, & Giffels, L.P.A., and William E. Blackie III, for respondent Brecksville-Broadview Heights Board of Education.
Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson & Newman and Robert J. Walter, urging issuance of writ for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Public School Employees/AFSCME Local 4, AFL-CIO.
Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy & Macala Co., L.P.A., and Ronald G. Macala, urging issuance of writ for amici curiae, Westlake Education Assn. and Independence Education Assn.
Daniel S. Smith, OEA/NEA Director of Legal Services, urging issuance of writ for amici curiae, Ohio Education Assn. and Columbus Education Assn.
Kalniz, Iorio & Feldstein Co., L.P.A., and Brenda Meyer, urging issuance of writ for amici curiae, Swanton Education Assn. and Sylvania Education Assn.
MOYER, C.J.
{¶ 7} The issue presented is whether Section 4(A) оf Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 deprives the State Employment Relations Board of jurisdiction to consider a petition filed jointly by an employer and an exclusive bargaining representative that requests an amendment to the composition of a deemed certified bargaining unit.
{¶ 8} “In order for a writ of mandamus to issue, a relator must demonstrate
{¶ 9} Under
{¶ 10} This court has previously stаted that “[t]he purpose of the Act is to minimize public-sector labor conflict and to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes when they arise.” State ex rel. Dayton Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 44 v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 22 OBR 1, 5, 488 N.E.2d 181, 186. The policy of encouraging cooperation rather than conflict betwеen public employers and employees was important enough to the General Assembly that it included a subsection of the statute to emphasize the point.
{¶ 11} Standing alone, the language of
{¶ 12} The syllabus of Ohio Council 8 reads:
“Ohio Adm.Code 4117-5-01(F) is in clear conflict with Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 (140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 336 337) and is, therefore, invalid. Pursuant to Section 4(A), adjustments or alterations to deemed certified collective bargaining units are not permitted until challenged by another employee organization.” (Emphasis added.) SERB contends that it correctly relied on the syllabus language in refusing to accept jurisdiction over the joint petitions.
{¶ 13}
“For a unit that has not been approved by the board through the procedures of division (A) of section 4117.05 or 4117.07 of the Revised Code, a petition for unit clarification or amendment of a deemed certified unit may be filed only during the period of one hundred twenty days to ninety days before the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement, after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, or at any other time if the petition is submitted by mutual request of the parties. Unless the petition for amendment or clarification of such a unit is submitted by mutual request, the board will consider clarification or amendment only if the petition alleges that the unit contains a combination of employees prohibited by division (D) of section 4117.06 of the Revised Code.”
{¶ 14} SERB argues that two aspects of our holding in Ohio Council 8
{¶ 15} The issue of a joint petition for amended certification of a bargaining unit was not before the court in Ohio Council 8. Rather, that case involved the conflict between Section 4(A) of the Act and the language of
{¶ 16} The controlling issue in this case is whether, as SERB contends, Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 precludes SERB jurisdiсtion over joint petitions for amended certification of collective bargaining units. Section 4(A) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this act, an employee organization recognized as the exclusive representative shall be deemed certified until challenged by another employee оrganization under the provisions of this act and the State Employment Relations Board has certified an exclusive representative.” 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 336, 337. The quoted language is the same language that provided the foundation for our decision in Ohio Council 8. Its
{¶ 17} First and foremost, we note that the language of Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 does not expressly protect the composition of the bargaining unit. Section 4(A) provides that the deemed certified unit shall remain deemed certified until challenged by another organization. It does not exclude, expressly or otherwise, SERB jurisdiction under the facts of this case; nor does it рreclude the addition of a group of employees to an existing bargaining unit where no one opposes the action. In the absence of express statutory direction, and in light of our decision in Ohio Council 8, we must determine the intent of the General Assembly and decide whether there is good reason to extend the Ohio Council 8 reasoning to the facts of the present case.
{¶ 18} In Ohio Council 8 we explained at some length that the Section 4(A) language explicitly protecting the deemed certified status of the employee representative also protected the composition of the bargaining unit from unilateral attack by the employer on grounds of
{¶ 19} We find the distinctiоn between unilateral and joint petitions to be dispositive for the following reasons: (1) The language of Section 4(A) does not expressly require that SERB forgo jurisdiction, and we decline to read such a requirement into the statute; (2) Co-operative solutions are the express objective of Ohio collective bargаining law.
{¶ 20} Though it is reasonable to conclude, as we did in Ohio Council 8,
{¶ 21} The grandfather clause of Section 4 of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 was included in the statute in order to protect existing relationships from upheaval due to the passage of the Act. See Drucker, Collective Bargaining Law in Ohio (1993) 199, Section 5.02(D). There is no indication, however, either in our opinions or in the legislative history of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133, that the intent of the legislature was slavish adherence to the 1983 status quo. On the contrary, it is clear that Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 and
{¶ 22} SERB has offered no evidence that there was any question, prior to our decision in Ohio Council 8, regarding SERB‘s jurisdiction to consider joint petitions for amendment of bargaining units. Indeed,
{¶ 23} We agree with BEA and the board that if this court were to find no jurisdiction for SERB to consider the joint petition, such holding would impose an unworkable and unrealistic requirement that the employee unit composition be
{¶ 24} In construing the statutes of this state, we must presume that just and reasonable results are intended by the General Assembly.
{¶ 25} We are confident that the General Assembly did not intend unified parties to forgo that course of action which they judge to be desirable and efficacious for all concerned, simply because it is not the solution agreed upon prior to October 6, 1983, and because no rival organization has challenged the exclusive representative. We therefore hold that Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 does not deprive the State Employment Relations Board of jurisdiction to consider a petition jointly filed by an employer and an exclusive representative requesting SERB to amend the composition of a deemed certified bargaining unit.
{¶ 26} Accordingly, we conclude that BEA and the board are entitled to the determination they seek and that SERB is under a duty to provide it. The writ of mandamus is therefore granted.
Writ granted.
F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur separately in the syllabus and judgment.
WRIGHT, J., concurs in the syllabus and judgment.
{¶ 27} I concur in the syllabus and judgment of the majority. I write separately to make two points wherein I disagree with the majority.
{¶ 28} The majority stаtes that “* * * the language of Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 does not expressly protect the composition of the bargaining unit.” I respectfully disagree. I believe that Section 4(A) does protect the deemed certified unit, including composition, from attack by all but another employee organization. That, in fact, is the real substance of Ohio Council 8. This does not say, however, as the majority clearly points out, that the сomposition of a unit cannot be changed by the joint agreement of the unit and the public employer. Such an agreement is not an attack.
{¶ 29} The majority also says, in discussing Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133, that “[t]here is no indication * * * that the intent of the legislature was slavish adherence to the 1983 status quo.” While I would not call it “slavish adherence,” I would say and I do bеlieve that the intent of the legislature was to codify then existing bargaining relationships, so as to maintain the status quo between public employers and their employees who at that time had a collective bargaining history and, often, a contractual relationship.
{¶ 30} With the foregoing exceptions, I concur with the well-reasoned syllabus, opinion and judgment of the majority.
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.