Mahoning County Bd. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities v. Mahoning County TMR Educ. Ass'n.
Decision Date | 05 February 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 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. |
Court | Ohio 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:
* * * "
Section 3.061 of Article III provided:
(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:
Section 5.10 provided:
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 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 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-
City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Ass'n
...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
...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
...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
...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......