State ex rel. Stewart v. State Employment Relations Board

108 Ohio St. 3d 203 (2006) · Supreme Court of Ohio · March 1, 2006

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a writ of mandamus sought by William H. Stewart to compel the State Employment Relations Board to issue unfair-labor-practice complaints against the city of Dayton and a public-employee union. The court held that SERB did not abuse its discretion in finding no probable cause, concluding that the collective-bargaining agreement did not give Stewart an independent right to compel arbitration and that the evidence supported SERB’s conclusions regarding the union’s conduct and alleged retaliation.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Moyer, C.J.; Resnick; Lundberg Stratton; O’Connor; O’Donnell; Lanzinger; Pfeifer
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
March 1, 2006
Procedural posture
Appeal as of right from a court of appeals judgment granting SERB's motion for summary judgment and denying Stewart's requested writ of mandamus.
Standard of review
Mandamus may remedy SERB's abuse of discretion in dismissing unfair-labor-practice charges. Abuse of discretion means an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude, and courts should not substitute their judgment for SERB's probable-cause determination.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Parties
William H. Stewart v. State Employment Relations Board
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

unfair labor practicescollective bargainingjudicial review of agency actionadministrative lawretaliation

Practice areas

labor lawadministrative lawemployment lawremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether mandamus could compel SERB to issue unfair-labor-practice complaints and conduct hearings after SERB found no probable cause.
  2. Whether SERB abused its discretion by determining that neither the city nor the union had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to proceed to arbitration.
  3. Whether SERB abused its discretion by rejecting Stewart's retaliation claim.

Holdings

  1. Mandamus is available to remedy an abuse of discretion by SERB in dismissing unfair-labor-practice charges because SERB's probable-cause determinations are not reviewable by direct appeal.
  2. Stewart had no independent right to compel the city and union to arbitrate his grievance because the collective-bargaining agreement authorized only the union to refer the grievance to arbitration.
  3. SERB did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Stewart's charges because its determinations were not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Key quotations

An abuse of discretion connotes an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude. (¶ 10)
Based on the foregoing, SERB did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Stewart’s unfair-labor-practice charges. The rulings by SERB were not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. (¶ 17)

Factual background

William H. Stewart, a City of Dayton employee and member of a public-employee union, was discharged after a disciplinary hearing. He elected to pursue the grievance and arbitration procedure under the collective-bargaining agreement, but the union declined to refer the matter to arbitration after determining that the grievance lacked sufficient merit. Stewart then filed unfair-labor-practice charges against the city and union, alleging collusion, denial of arbitration rights, and retaliation.

Procedural history

After SERB dismissed Stewart's unfair-labor-practice charges for lack of probable cause, Stewart filed a mandamus action in the Montgomery County Court of Appeals seeking to compel SERB to find probable cause, issue complaints, and hold hearings. The court of appeals granted SERB's motion for summary judgment and denied the writ. Stewart appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…