Title: State ex rel. Stewart v. State Emp. Relations Bd.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Stewart v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 108 Ohio St.3d 203, 2006-Ohio-661.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. STEWART, APPELLANT, v. STATE 
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Stewart v. State Emp. Relations Bd.,  
108 Ohio St.3d 203, 2006-Ohio-661.] 
Writ of mandamus sought to compel SERB to make a finding of probable cause 
for unfair-labor-practice charge — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2005-1120 — Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided March 1, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 20329. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to 
compel a state board to issue complaints charging a public employer and a public-
employee union with unfair labor practices. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, William H. Stewart, was employed by the city of 
Dayton, Ohio, in the city’s division of housing inspection.  During his 
employment, Stewart was a member of the Dayton Public Service Union, Local 
101, Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. 
{¶ 3} On February 28, 2003, the city discharged Stewart from his 
employment with the city following a disciplinary hearing.  Stewart then 
discussed with a union official the grievance and arbitration procedure specified 
in the collective-bargaining agreement between the city and the union.  Following 
this discussion, Stewart notified the union that he had elected to appeal his 
dismissal through the grievance and arbitration procedure.  See Section C, Article 
25 of the collective-bargaining agreement (“Disciplinary action involving any * * 
* dismissal * * * may be appealed by the employee, either independently or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
through the Union, either to the Civil Service Board in accordance with the City 
Charter and Civil Service Rules and Regulations, or through the grievance and 
arbitration procedure set forth in this Agreement * * * ”). 
{¶ 4} After exhausting the grievance procedure, Stewart demanded that 
the union and the city arbitrate his grievance.  The city refused to arbitrate the 
grievance until the union sent notice of its intent to arbitrate on behalf of Stewart.  
The union noted that it would submit the grievance to arbitration only if its review 
of the matter determined that Stewart’s grievance had merit.  The union’s position 
that it, not Stewart, had the final say in whether the grievance would be arbitrated 
was premised upon Article 24 of the collective-bargaining agreement, which 
specified at Step 4 of the grievance procedure that “[i]f the grievance is not 
settled, the Union may refer the grievance to the arbitration procedure” and that 
“[i]f not referred to the arbitration procedure within ten (10) work days after 
receipt of the answer rendered in this step, the grievance shall be considered 
settled.”  On August 7, 2003, the union notified Stewart that his grievance lacked 
“sufficient merit to proceed to arbitration.” 
{¶ 5} On September 10, 2003, Stewart filed unfair-labor-practice charges 
against the city and the union with appellee, State Employment Relations Board 
(“SERB”).  Stewart primarily claimed that the city and union had colluded to 
deny him his right to arbitrate his discharge from employment with the city.  
Stewart also claimed that the city fired him in retaliation for his exercise of his 
lawful rights. 
{¶ 6} A labor-relations specialist for SERB conducted an investigation of 
Stewart’s charges and determined that no probable cause existed to support them.  
She recommended that SERB dismiss the charges.  In December 2003, SERB 
dismissed the charges for lack of probable cause to believe that the city or union 
committed an unfair labor practice. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 7} In January 2004, Stewart filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals 
for Montgomery County.  Stewart requested a writ of mandamus to compel SERB 
to (1) make a finding of probable cause, issue complaints on behalf of Stewart 
against Dayton and the union, and hold a hearing on the complaints, or (2) order 
Dayton to reinstate Stewart with full back pay, with the city and the union each 
paying half.  SERB answered the complaint, and the parties moved for summary 
judgment.  In Stewart’s summary-judgment motions, he restricted his claims for 
relief to a writ of mandamus to compel SERB to find probable cause for his 
unfair-labor-practice charges, issue complaints, and hold hearings on the charges. 
{¶ 8} On May 16, 2005, the court of appeals granted SERB’s motion and 
denied the writ. 
{¶ 9} This cause is now before the court upon Stewart’s appeal as of 
right. 
Mandamus:  Dismissal of Unfair-Labor-Practice Charges 
{¶ 10} Stewart asserts that he is entitled to the requested writ of 
mandamus.  “R.C. 4117.12(B) requires SERB to issue a complaint and conduct a 
hearing on an unfair-labor-practice charge if it has probable cause for believing 
that a violation occurred.”  State ex rel. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State 
Emp. Relations Bd., 102 Ohio St.3d 344, 2004-Ohio-3122, 810 N.E.2d 949, ¶ 16.  
Because these SERB determinations are not reviewable by direct appeal, 
mandamus is available to remedy an abuse of discretion by SERB in dismissing 
unfair-labor-practice charges.  State ex rel. Tritt v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 97 
Ohio St.3d 280, 2002-Ohio-6437, 779 N.E.2d 226, ¶ 6; see, also, State ex rel. 
Serv. Emp. Internatl. Union, Dist. 925 v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1998), 81 
Ohio St.3d 173, 178, 689 N.E.2d 962.  “An abuse of discretion connotes an 
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude.”  State ex rel. Grady v. State 
Emp. Relations Bd. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183, 677 N.E.2d 343. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} Stewart claims that SERB abused its discretion in dismissing his 
unfair-labor-practice charges against the city and the union.  “SERB must issue a 
complaint and conduct a hearing on an unfair labor practice charge if, following 
an investigation, it has reasonable ground to believe that an unfair labor practice 
has occurred.”  State ex rel. Portage Lakes Edn. Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. 
Relations Bd., 95 Ohio St.3d 533, 2002-Ohio-2839, 769 N.E.2d 853, ¶ 38. 
{¶ 12} Based on its investigation of Stewart’s charges, SERB concluded 
that no probable cause existed to support the charges.  SERB reasonably 
concluded so based on the following. 
{¶ 13} First, neither the city nor the union had a duty to proceed to 
arbitration in the absence of the union’s referral.  The collective-bargaining 
agreement specified that if a discharged employee elected to appeal the dismissal 
through the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedure, the appeal would be 
introduced at Step 3 or Step 4 of the procedure.  Under Steps 3 and 4 of the 
procedure, only the union is authorized to refer the grievance to the next step, 
which is arbitration.  The employee lacks any independent right to compel the city 
and union to arbitrate his grievance. 
{¶ 14} Second, Stewart failed to establish any due-process or equal-
protection right to arbitration based upon the language of the collective-
bargaining agreement. 
{¶ 15} Third, evidence supported SERB’s determination that the union 
did not misrepresent the right of arbitration to Stewart.  SERB’s investigation 
revealed that a union representative “informed Mr. Stewart during the processing 
of his grievance there was no guarantee that his grievance would proceed to 
arbitration” and that the union maintained that “it took all the necessary steps to 
preserve Mr. Stewart’s grievances until it determined, in good faith, that his 
grievance lac[k]ed merit to warrant arbitration.”  “Because mandamus 
proceedings are premised upon the relators’ establishing an abuse of discretion by 
January Term, 2006 
5 
SERB in its probable-cause determination, courts should not substitute their 
judgment for that of the administrative agency, i.e., SERB.”  Portage Lakes, 95 
Ohio St.3d 533, 2002-Ohio-2839, 769 N.E.2d 853, at ¶ 41. 
{¶ 16} Finally, regarding Stewart’s claim that his dismissal resulted from 
the city’s retaliation for his lawful exercise of his rights, SERB concluded 
otherwise.  Based on its investigative findings, SERB determined that the city 
provided a “persuasive rebuttal to show that retaliation was not the motive behind 
its actions.”  See Portage Lakes at ¶ 40, quoting Drucker, Collective Bargaining 
in Ohio (1995) 670, Section 14.20(B) (“ ‘In making its [probable-cause] 
determination, SERB will consider not only the evidence that supports the 
allegations of the charge but also, of course, any information that may rebut the 
charge or offer a defense to the violation alleged.  Issues such as managerial 
justification * * * or the failure to show any indication of unlawful motivation 
may be sufficient to secure dismissal of a case even when the facts alleged in the 
charge have been verified’ ”). 
{¶ 17} 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.  Therefore, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
William H. Stewart, pro se. 
                                                 
1.  We deny appellant’s request for oral argument and motion to strike appellee’s merit brief. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Michael D. Allen, Principal Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________