Case Name: Communications Workers of America/Council of Public Workers, Appellee, v. State Employment Relations Board, Appellant, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1988-09-21
Citations: 38 Ohio St. 3d 602
Docket Number: No. 87-864
Parties: Communications Workers of America/Council of Public Workers, Appellee, v. State Employment Relations Board, Appellant, et al.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Locher, Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 38
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
Communications Workers of America/Council of Public Workers, Appellee, v. State Employment Relations Board, Appellant, et al.
[Cite as Communications Workers of America/Council of Public Workers v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 602.]
(No. 87-864
Submitted March 8, 1988
Decided September 21, 1988.)
Dennis R. Morgan, for appellee.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Loren L. Braverman, for appellant.
Moyer, C.J., Locher, Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur.
Sweeney and Douglas, JJ., dissent with opinion.
H. Brown, J., dissents.

Opinion:
Douglas, J.,
dissenting. I dissent to the majority's dismissal of this appeal as having been improvidently allowed.
The instant case presents this court with an excellent opportunity to address a vital question of great public interest and to announce a state-wide rule. The specific question presented is whether the State Employment Relations Board's dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge is a final order which may be appealed to the court of common pleas under R.C. 4117.13(D). This important question has never been addressed by this court. As a result of today's decision dismissing the instant appeal, trial courts and courts of appeals must continue to struggle with the issue without any guidance from this court, a situation which will inevitably cause confusion and conflict. Moreover, the parties to this appeal, having expended much time, energy and expense in pursuing their cause in this court, are denied the definitive answer which they have every right to believe is forthcoming.
I cannot concur in the majority's decision to squander this opportunity to formulate an authoritative rule on the important question presented by this case. Accordingly, I dissent.
Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.