Lead Opinion
Appellants assert in several propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in several respects. As a preliminary matter, sinсe appellants are appealing from a judgment which denied the writ they were contesting, it must be determined if they possess standing to appeаl.
“Appeal lies only on behalf of a party aggrieved by the final order appealed from. Appeals are not allowed for the purpose of settling abstract questions, but only to correct errors injuriously affecting the appellant.” Ohio Contract Carriers Assn. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1942),
Appellants and various city officials were рarties to the mandamus action filed in the court of appeals. The court of appeals determined in part that city board of health еmployees are employees of a state agency who are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement betweеn the city and AFSCME. If not appeal
Appellants also challenge the court of appeals’ failure to grant their motions to dismiss or fоr summary judgment based on their arguments that the sanitarians failed to exhaust their contractual and administrative remedies. However, since judgment on the sanitarians’ mandamus claim for retroactive wage increases was ultimately denied in favor of appellants and the respondents city officials, the court need not issue an advisory opinion to discuss whether additional reasons supported denial of the requested mandamus relief. See, e.g., Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1990),
The court of appeals’ determination that city board of health employees are state employees is consistent with precedеnt. See, generally, Johnson’s Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Dept. of Health (1991),
In Harrison v. Judge (1992),
The court of appeals further determined that employees of the Youngstown Board of Health are not within the bargaining unit of the collective bargaining agreement between the city and AFSCME due to the employees’ status as state employees. Local 2312 of AFSCME is the deemed certified bargaining agent for certain employees of Youngstown. The deemed certified bargaining unit contained employees of the city health board, including sanitarians.
In Harrison, supra,
“The trial court properly determined that the board [of hеalth] and Barberton are separate political entities. However, the trial court did not have the power to alter the existing employee bargaining unit, as the structure of a bargaining unit may only be altered by SERB. We cannot find, nor are we directed to, any authority which prohibits the board and Barbеrton from entering into joint negotiations with AFSCME and the existing bargaining unit. The trial court erred in determining that the board may engage in exclusive negotiations with its employees. Until the board, Barberton, AFSCME, or the employees in the existing bargaining unit request that SERB change the structure of the present bargaining unit and/or the exclusive representative, the board and Barberton must jointly observe the status quo with regard to the existing employee bargaining unit with AFSCME as the exclusive representative of such unit.”
Similarly, in the instant case, the court of appeals erred in concluding that Youngstown Board of Health employees are not within thе bargaining unit covered by the applicable collective bargaining agreements between the city and AFSCME. No member of the Youngstown Board of Health ever complained about the city’s representation of it in negotiations with AFSCME concerning the board’s employees. In addition, there is no еvidence of a challenge by another employee organization to AFSCME’s representation of Youngstown Board of
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals insofar as it held that employees of the Youngstown Board of Health are not within the bargaining unit covered by the collective bargaining agreement between Youngstown and AFSCME. In all other rеspects, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Notes
. “Also known as a ‘historical unit,’ a deemed certified collective bargaining agent is the employee representative who bargained with the employer on behalf of publiс employees in a collective bargaining relationship that predated the passage of the Ohio Collective Bargaining Act. Rather than bеing certified by SERB according to the normal certification procedure provided for under the Act, such units were ‘deemed certified’ by the grandfather clause of Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133, and are treated as if they had been certified normally.” State ex rel. Brecksville Edn. Assn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1996),
Concurrence Opinion
conсurring. I concur in the judgment of the majority, and, in particular, in the majority’s finding that the employees of the Youngstown Board of Health are members of the bargaining unit covered by the collective bargaining agreement between Youngstown and AFSCME. However, I write separately because if this is so, and it is, then the sanitаrians are subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement and, accordingly, mandamus would not be available to them. I believe the majority, to be consistent with its finding of bargaining-unit membership, should have denied mandamus relief.