Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors, Cent. State Univ. Chapter v. Cent. State Univ.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-568,97-568
• Citation: 699 N.E.2d 463,83 Ohio St.3d 229
• Parties: , 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2424, 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2657, 128 Ed. Law Rep. 1168, 1998 SERB 4-51 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 229

83 Ohio St.3d 229

699 N.E.2d 463, 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2424,

159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2657, 128 Ed. Law Rep. 1168,

1998 SERB 4-51

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

No. 97-568.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 4, 1998.

Decided Sept. 30, 1998.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

R.C. 3345.45 violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions since the classification contained therein bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.

Plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant, American Association of University Professors, Central State University Chapter ("AAUP"), is the certified collective bargaining agent for full-time faculty members at defendant-appellant and cross-appellee, Central State University ("CSU"). AAUP and CSU have engaged in collective bargaining since 1985. Their most recent agreement was effective September 1, 1991 through August 31, 1994. Article 19 of that agreement governed faculty workload and provided, among other things, that the "[n]ormal full-time workload will be twelve (12) contact hours per quarter," and that "[i]f a Bargaining Unit member teaches more than twelve (12) contact hours * * *, then the additional hours will be considered as an overload" entitling the member, at his or her option, to either "overload compensation" or "the equivalent in release time in a subsequent quarter." It also provided that "[b]argaining unit members will have at least eight (8) posted office hours per week and will be available for additional hours by appointment."

At the time the parties entered into this agreement, the provisions governing faculty workload were appropriate subjects for collective bargaining under R.C. 4117.08(A), and binding on the parties under R.C. 4117.10(A). However, while the agreement was in effect, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 3345.45 as part of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 152, 145 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3767. R.C. 3345.45, effective July 1, 1993, provides as follows:

"On or before January 1, 1994, the Ohio board of regents jointly with all state universities, as defined in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code, shall develop standards for instructional workloads for full-time and part-time faculty in keeping with the universities' missions and with special emphasis on the undergraduate learning experience. The standards shall contain clear guidelines for institutions to determine a range of acceptable undergraduate teaching by faculty.

"On or before June 30, 1994, the board of trustees of each state university shall take formal action to adopt a faculty workload policy consistent with the standards developed under this section. Notwithstanding section 4117.08 of the Revised Code, the policies adopted under this section are not appropriate subjects for collective bargaining. Notwithstanding division (A) of section 4117.10 of the Revised Code, any policy adopted under this section by a board of trustees prevails over any conflicting provisions of any collective bargaining agreement between an employees organization and that board of trustees." (Emphasis added.)

Also enacted as part of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 152, Section 84.14, uncodified, provides:

"Pursuant to section 3345.45 of the Revised Code, the Ohio Board of Regents shall work with state universities to ensure that no later than fall term 1994 a minimum ten per cent increase in statewide undergraduate teaching activity be achieved to restore the reductions experienced over the past decade. Notwithstanding section 3345.45 of the Revised Code, any collective bargaining agreement in effect on the effective date of this act shall continue in effect until its expiration date." (Emphasis added.) 145 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4539.

On April 15, 1994, AAUP and CSU began negotiations for a successor agreement. On June 16, 1994, CSU unilaterally adopted a new workload policy pursuant to R.C. 3345.45, which it later amended in November 1994. That policy, as amended, provides:

"The normal full-time teaching load will be a range of 36 to 40 contact hours per academic year. The normal teaching load in any quarter will not exceed 15 contact hours. Faculty members shall have at least ten office hours distributed over the five day work week."

On July 28, 1994, CSU notified AAUP that it would not bargain over the issue of faculty workload, "as faculty workload is no longer subject to the collective bargaining process as a result of House Bill 152." However, the parties entered into an agreement on December 14, 1994, as follows:

"In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction rules that O.R.C. 3345.45 is unconstitutional, or otherwise finds that the University and AAUP must or can bargain concerning faculty workload, the provisions of this article [Article 19] shall be reopened, and the University and AAUP shall commence negotiations concerning faculty workload."

Meanwhile, the parties continued to operate under the terms and conditions of the 1991-1994 agreement while bargaining on issues other than workload.

On May 17, 1995, AAUP filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and a motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Civ.R. 65(B), alleging that R.C. 3345.45 violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, and Section 1, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. The trial court ordered trial on the merits of the action to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction, in accordance with Civ.R. 65(B)(2).

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied AAUP's requests for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and held R.C. 3345.45 to be constitutional in its entirety. In so doing, the court found:

"The legislature had a legitimate governmental purpose in the enactment of Ohio Revised Code Section 3345.45. The legitimate governmental purpose is to recapture the ten (10%) percent decline in teaching that had occurred in undergraduate teaching in State four (4) year universities, thereby enhancing the quality of undergraduate education at four (4) year State institutions. Another legitimate governmental purpose is to reallocate faculty attention to teaching and away from research. The legislative purpose also was to ensure that all State four (4) year universities uniformly implement workload policy consistent with the universities' mission.

"The collective bargaining language contained in Ohio Revised Code Section 3345.45 represents a legitimate governmental purpose as it enables the legislature to ensure that the ten (10%) percent decline will be recaptured uniformly by departments with the state universities consistent with each university's individual mission.

"Ohio Revised Code Section 3345.45 bears a rational relationship to the legitimate government purpose. Ohio Revised Code 3345.45 requires the State universities to implement workload policies designed to recapture the ten (10%) percent decline in instructional teaching. The collective bargaining provision contained in Ohio Revised Code Section 3345.45 ensures that each University will implement the workload policy consistent with the statute."

The court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. In so doing, the appellate court found that the right to collectively bargain is a fundamental right, and that the trial court should have employed "intermediate scrutiny," rather than the "rational relationship" test, in order to resolve the equal protection issue. However, the court of appeals did not determine whether R.C. 3345.45 runs afoul of equal protection, but instead remanded the cause to the trial court to determine whether the statute serves "important governmental objectives" and whether the classification contained therein is "substantially related to the achievement of those objectives."

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a discretionary appeal and cross-appeal.

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., Donald J. Mooney, Jr., Cincinnati, James F. DeLeone and Mark D. Tucker, Columbus, for appellee and cross-appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Lawrence J. Miltner and Jan A. Neiger, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Snyder, Rakay & Spicer and Peter J. Rakay, Dayton, for amicus curiae Ohio Education Association.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Lawrence J. Miltner, Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curiae Ohio Board of Regents.

ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, Justice.

The primary issue confronting the court today is whether R.C. 3345.45 violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions. CSU challenges the court of appeals' determination that collective bargaining is a fundamental right and its application of a heightened level of equal protection scrutiny. Although AAUP seeks to defend the reasoning of the court of appeals, its primary focus is on arguing that the rationales advanced in support of R.C. 3345.45 cannot withstand any level of equal protection scrutiny. For the following reasons, we hold that both appeals have merit.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides that "[a]ll political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit * * *." These two provisions are functionally equivalent, and the standards for determining violations of equal protection are essentially the same under state and federal law. State ex rel. Dayton Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 44 v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 22 OBR 1, 5, 488 N.E.2d 181, 185; Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept. (1994), 70...