Mahoning County Bd. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities v. Mahoning County TMR Educ. Ass'n.

Decision Date05 February 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-855,85-855
Parties, 30 Ed. Law Rep. 507, 22 O.B.R. 95 MAHONING COUNTY BOARD OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, Appellee, v. MAHONING COUNTY TMR EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. An arbitrator's award draws its essence from a collective bargaining agreement when there is a rational nexus between the agreement and the award, and where the award is not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.

2. Negotiated collective bargaining agreements are just as binding upon public employers as they are upon private employers.

Appellee, Mahoning County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities ("board"), is a public, tax-supported agency created under the authority of R.C. Chapter 5126. Appellant, Mahoning County Trainable Mentally Retarded Association ("association") is a local affiliate of the Ohio Education Association and represents professional staff members employed by the board. The association and the board have been parties to a series of collective bargaining agreements. The 1979-1981 agreement is the subject of this lawsuit.

Article III of the collective bargaining agreement contained a grievance procedure to resolve disputes arising under the contract. Section 3.06(c) of Article III provided:

"If the employee requests the Association to process * * * [a] grievance to arbitration, the Association may submit the grievance to arbitration by giving written notice to the Superintendent of its intent to do so. The parties shall first attempt to agree upon an impartial arbitrator to hear the grievance. If the parties are unable to agree within five (5) days from the Superintendent's receipt of the Association's appeal to arbitration, the Association shall then request the American Arbitration Association to administer the proceedings under the Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules of that Association. * * * "

Section 3.061 of Article III provided:

"The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The authority of the arbitrator shall be to determine controversies involving the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of specific provisions of this Agreement and he shall have no power to add to, subtract from, or modify any of the terms of this Agreement, or to arbitrate any matter not specifically provided for by this Agreement." (Emphasis added.)

The board operates the Leonard Kirtz Mahoning County School for the Retarded. Students attending the school are assigned to classes based on their age and functional abilities. Students with low-functioning abilities are assigned to Developmental Classrooms I and II.

In 1978, the board hired Mary Bagnoli and assigned her to teach students with low-functioning abilities in Developmental Classroom I. She taught there during the 1978-1979, 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 school years. Her supervisor, Principal Alice Rossi, rated her performance as excellent. In February 1981, Bagnoli told Rossi that she wanted to be transferred so that she could teach students with greater abilities. In June 1981, she expressed a similar desire to the school system superintendent. The superintendent told Bagnoli to talk with Rossi about a transfer. Shortly thereafter, Bagnoli spoke with Rossi. Bagnoli told her that three teachers, who were instructing higher functioning students, would not be returning for the 1981-1982 school year. Bagnoli asked to be transferred to one of their classrooms. At about the same time, the board was informed that the three teachers would not be returning for the 1981-1982 school year.

On August 21, 1981, Rossi informed Bagnoli that her request for transfer had been denied. On August 27, 1981, Bagnoli wrote to the school superintendent and again requested a transfer. The request was denied and the board filled the vacancies by transferring two teachers, neither of whom had requested reassignment, and by hiring a new teacher.

On September 8, 1981, the association filed a grievance on Bagnoli's behalf claiming that the denial of her transfer request violated Section 5.09, Article V of the 1979-1981 collective bargaining agreement. The parties, being unable to resolve the grievance between themselves, submitted the matter to final and binding arbitration pursuant to step 5 of the agreed-to grievance procedure. On July 24, 1982, the arbitrator found that the board had violated Sections 5.09(d) and 5.10, Article V of the agreement. Section 5.09 provided:

"Vacancies

"a. A vacancy shall be defined as a position previously held by any member of the Employee Unit or a position, existing or newly created, for which a member of the Employee Unit is qualified.

"b. When the Superintendent learns of a vacancy, he or his designate shall, as soon as reasonably possible, post notice of such vacancy in a conspicuous place in all Program buildings. During the summer recess such notice shall be mailed to those employees not working.

"c. Each notice of vacancy shall include the building, the functioning level, and the qualifications required of each applicant. In the case of newly created positions or positions outside of the Employee Unit, said notice shall also stipulate the compensation for the position "d. Employees shall have one week to bid on a vacancy. When the qualifications of two or more employees are deemed equal, preference will be given to the one with the greatest seniority."

Section 5.10 provided:

"Transfers

"a. The Board and the Association recognize that frequent transfers of personnel from one building to another or from one assignment to another within the same building is [sic ] disruptive of the educational process and shall be avoided whenever possible.

"b. When, in the judgment of the Board, it becomes necessary to make such a transfer or change of assignment, the Board will not do so without prior discussion with the employee to be transferred.

"c. Such transfers and changes of assignment shall be on a voluntary basis whenever possible.

"d. In making involuntary transfers and changes of assignment, the wishes of the employee will be honored to the extent that these considerations do not conflict with the instructional requirements and best interests of the students and clients.

"e. In all transfer situations, when other considerations are deemed equal, preference will be given to the employee with the greatest seniority."

The arbitrator ordered the board to remedy its breach by granting Bagnoli's transfer request.

On October 12, 1982, the board filed a motion in the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County requesting " * * * that the court vacate the Award of the Arbitrator for the reason that the Arbitrator exceeded his powers by adding to, subtracting from and modifying the terms of the Master Agreement between the parties. * * * [T]he Arbitrator's decision herein abrogated and usurped the power of the * * * [board] or its designate, to assign or transfer teachers as conferred upon the Board by the * * * [collective bargaining agreement, and] the laws and Constitution of the State of Ohio * * *." On June 16, 1983, the court vacated the arbitrator's award pursuant to R.C. 2711.10. The applicable provision, R.C. 2711.10, provides in part:

"In any of the following cases, the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration if:

"* * *

"(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made."

In vacating the arbitrator's decision, the court noted that R.C. 5126.06 1 makes all personnel decisions the sole function of management. The court further noted that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
250 cases
  • City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Ass'n
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 2016
    ...and has the additional advantage of unburdening crowded court dockets.” Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn., 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 83, 488 N.E.2d 872 (1986). “The whole purpose of arbitration would be undermined if courts had broad authori......
  • New Hope Cmty. Church v. Patriot Energy Partners, LLC
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 2013
    ...v. Brennan, 164 Ohio St. 29, 128 N.E.2d 89 (1955), paragraph one of the syllabus; Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 488 N.E.2d 872 (1986); and Bd. of Edn. Of the Findlay City School Dist. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 12......
  • Buyer's First Realty, Inc. v. Cleveland Area Bd. of Realtors
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 2000
    ...with the "additional advantage of unburdening crowded court dockets." Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 83, 22 OBR 95, 98, 488 N.E.2d 872, 875. To this end, the General Assembly has limited the role of judicial review by deline......
  • The City Of Piqua v. Fraternal Order Of Police
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 2009
    ...advantage of unburdening crowded court dockets.” Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. Trainable Mentally Retarded Edn. Assn. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 83, 22 OBR 95, 488 N.E.2d 872; see also Springfield at 546 (“[T]he purpose of an arbitration is[ ] t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT