Carter v. Trotwood-Madison City Bd. of Edn.

• Decision Date: 10 April 2009
• Docket Number: No. 22830.,22830.
• Citation: 2009 Ohio 1769,910 N.E.2d 1088,181 Ohio App.3d 764
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Parties: CARTER et al., Appellants, v. TROTWOOD-MADISON CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee.

910 N.E.2d 1088

181 Ohio App.3d 764

2009-Ohio-1769

CARTER et al., Appellants, v. TROTWOOD-MADISON CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee.

No. 22830.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.

Decided April 10, 2009.

Martin, Folino, Harmon & Stachler, Dayton and Tyler D. Starline, for appellants.

Cooper, Gentile & Washington, Dwight A. Washington, and Beverly A. Meyer, Dayton, for appellee.

FAIN, Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants Paula Carter and Susie Toney jointly appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing their complaint against defendant-appellee Trotwood-Madison City Board of Education. Carter and Toney contend that the trial court erred in sustaining the board's motion to dismiss because, as retirees, they do not fit within the definition of individuals who are required to file grievances under the collective-bargaining agreement entered into by the board and its employees. Carter and Toney also contend that their contractual action is not preempted by R.C. Chapter 4117, because they were not "public employees" as defined by R.C. 4117.01(C) when their cause of action accrued.

{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss. Although we conclude that the trial court erred in requiring Carter and Toney to exhaust grievance procedures in the collective-bargaining agreement, this error does not require reversal. The trial court correctly held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action because plaintiffs' claims arise from, and depend upon, a collective-bargaining agreement with the board. The State Employee Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the case under R.C. Chapter 4117, which provides exclusive remedies and does not allow for a private right of action.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I

{¶ 4} The contract at issue in this case is a collective-bargaining agreement ("CBA") entered into between the board and the Trotwood-Madison Education Association ("TMEA"). The CBA was effective from July 1, 2005, though June 30, 2007. At the time the CBA was adopted, Carter and Toney were full-time certified board employees. Under the CBA, the board recognized TMEA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent "for all full-time and part-time, certified and support staff employees, hereinafter `unit members,' not excluded herein."

{¶ 5} The CBA is an extensive agreement covering various terms and conditions of employment, including retirement incentives. Article 14(J) of the CBA states:

{¶ 6} "1. The Board shall offer a retirement incentive to all qualifying unit members.

{¶ 7} "2. To qualify for this retirement incentive, the unit member must retire under one of the Ohio public employees' retirement systems before or by no later than the end of the day on June 30 of the contract year in which he/she will have thirty years of retirement service credit.

{¶ 8} "3. Example A: A unit member who separates from employment within the timetable but who does not retire is not eligible.

{¶ 9} "4. Example B: Likewise, a unit member who waits until after he/she has begun the next work year after becoming eligible for thirty years of retirement service credit is not eligible.

{¶ 10} "5. Example C: A unit member who retired under one of the systems with less than thirty years of service credit still qualify [sic] for the incentive.

{¶ 11} "6. To remain qualified, the member must give, by March 31 of the year of retirement, written notice to the Superintendent of intent to retire. This effective date of retirement must be no earlier than the teachers' last workday or June 30, whichever comes sooner, in a given year. A unit member who either misses the notification deadline or otherwise fails to retire within the time frame outlined herein forfeits his/her rights to retirement incentive.

{¶ 12} "7. The incentive shall be equal to 2.5 [per cent] of the given unit member's annual wages/salary in the year leading to retirement times the number of years given unit member has been employed by the Board, not to exceed 50% of the given unit member's annual wages/salary. The Board will pay the incentive no later than January 1^st of year following retirement and no later than fourteen (14) months after the given unit member's effective date of retirement, provided however, that prior to making payment, the Board may require the retired unit member to submit proof by way of photocopy of a pension check or other credible document that the individual has retired."

{¶ 13} According to the complaint, Carter gave the superintendent written notice of her intention to retire under the State Teachers Retirement System ("STRS"), effective no later than the end of the day on June 30, 2006. Carter then retired under STRS with an accumulation of 29.40 years of service credit. Similarly, Toney gave the superintendent written notice of her intention to retire by June 30, 2006 and subsequently retired with 30 years of service in STRS and 5.33 years of service credit with the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio ("SERS").

{¶ 14} In July 2007, approximately 13 months later, the board denied Carter's and Toney's requests for the retirement incentives. The complaint does not indicate the reason for the denial. Carter and Toney apparently did not attempt to file a grievance with the board pursuant to the CBA, nor did they file any unfair-labor-practice claims with the State Employment Relations Board ("SERB").

{¶ 15} The CBA contains a four-step grievance procedure, which applies "[w]henever the Association, a unit member or a group of unit members, hereinafter `grievant,' believes one or more provisions of this Agreement have been violated, misinterpreted and/or applied."

{¶ 16} Step One requires discussion of the grievance with the lowest level supervisor who could reasonably appear to have authority to resolve the grievance. Under the CBA, the grievance must be presented orally and identified as a grievance within 30 working days after the grievant knows or should know about the facts giving rise to the grievance. Thereafter, the grievance is processed by appeal to higher level administrators, with various time frames for appeal. Ultimately, if the grievance is not resolved by appeal to the superintendent, Step Four allows an appeal, with TMEA concurrence, to final, binding arbitration.

{¶ 17} Under the agreement, the parties may agree to waive or extend the time limits. Finally, the CBA states that "[u]nless contrary to law, the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Board of Education, the Association, and grievant(s)."

{¶ 18} Instead of pursuing their claims through the grievance process, Carter and Toney filed this action against the board in March 2008, alleging breach of contract. The board then filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6), contending that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims were preempted by R.C. Chapter 4117. The board further argued that Carter and Toney failed to exhaust administrative remedies and were barred from bringing suit because only parties to a collective-bargaining agreement may bring suit under R.C. Chapter 4117. Specifically, the board contended that no private right of action exists.

{¶ 19} The trial court agreed with the board and dismissed the action. Carter and Toney appeal from the dismissal of their cause of action.

II

{¶ 20} Carter and Toney's sole assignment of error is as follows:

{¶ 21} "The trial court prejudicially erred by sustaining the defendant's motion to dismiss."

{¶ 22} Carter and Toney have presented four statements of issues under this assignment of error. Their first statement of issues is as follows:

{¶ 23} "Under Ohio law, are the breach of contract claims subject to the dispute resolution procedures identified in the collective bargaining agreement (`CBA') when Carter and Toney did not satisfy the CBA definitions of `employees' or `unit members' at the time that their causes of action accrued?"

{¶ 24} Under this heading, Carter and Toney argue that the trial court erroneously focused on the accrual date of their contractual rights. They contend that the proper focus should be the date of accrual of their respective causes of action for breach of contract. At this latter time, Carter and Toney were "retirees" and did not qualify as "employees" or "unit members" under the CBA. Therefore, Carter and Toney contend that the grievance procedures in the CBA did not apply, and the case should not have been dismissed on this ground.

{¶ 25} The trial court dismissed the case under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

{¶ 26} "Appellate review of a trial court's decision to dismiss a case pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (B)(6) is de novo." (Citations omitted.) Crestmont Cleveland Partnership v. Ohio Dept. of Health (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 928, 936, 746 N.E.2d 222. De novo review means "that we apply the same standards as the trial court." GNFH, Inc. v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 172 Ohio App.3d 127, 2007-Ohio-2722, 873 N.E.2d 345, at ¶ 16.

{¶ 27} "To dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), we must determine whether a plaintiff has alleged any cause of action that the court has authority to decide. * * * Dismissal of a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is appropriate only where it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." (Citations omitted.) Crestmont, 139 Ohio App.3d at 936, 746 N.E.2d 222. Furthermore, when a trial court determines its own jurisdiction, it "has authority to consider any pertinent evidentiary materials." Nemazee v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 109, 111, 564 N.E.2d 477, fn. 3.

{¶ 28} "`It is a well-established principle of Ohio law that, prior to seeking court action in an administrative matter, the party must exhaust the available avenues of administrative relief through...