Harrison v. Judge
Decision Date | 10 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-1106,AFL-CIO,91-1106 |
Citation | 591 N.E.2d 704,63 Ohio St.3d 766 |
Parties | , 1992 SERB 4-79 HARRISON Health Commissioner, et al., Appellees, v. JUDGE, Mayor, et al., Appellees; Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,et al., Appellants. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Blakemore, Meeker, Varian, Looney & Bowler Co., L.P.A., and Donald S. Varian, Jr., Akron, for appellees Joseph R. Harrison, Health Commissioner of the city of Barberton, et al.
Johnson, Balazs & Angelo and James A. Budzik, Cleveland, for appellees William Judge, Mayor, and city of Barberton.
Ronald H. Janetzke, Columbus, for appellants Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO, and Local 265, American Federation of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO.
Livingston, Sell, Johnston & Kemmer and A. Melvin Kemmer, Troy, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ass'n of Ohio Health Com'rs and Ohio Ass'n of Boards of Health.
[1992 SERB 4-79] The cause is affirmed on authority of the court of appeals' opinion below, rendered April 10, 1991, and attached as an appendix to this entry.
APPENDIX
QUILLIN, Presiding Judge.
The city of Barberton ("Barberton") is a charter city. By charter amendment, Barberton created a board of health ("board").
On May 17, 1987, Joseph Harrison, Health Commissioner of the city of Barberton, filed a taxpayer's action requesting declaratory judgment on behalf of the board against Barberton and various public officials[1992 SERB 4-80] in the city of Barberton. Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("AFSCME"), subsequently intervened in the action as an interested party. The trial court determined that Section 6.04(a) of the Charter of the city of Barberton was unconstitutional. This issue was immediately appealed. In Harrison v. Judge (1989), 49 Ohio App.3d 125, 128, 550 N.E.2d 982, 984, we held that Section 6.04(a) of the Charter of the city of Barberton was constitutional and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The remaining issues on remand were submitted to the trial court on stipulated facts and briefs of counsel. The trial court found that the board and Barberton are separate political entities, and the board may choose to negotiate with employees under its control separate from Barberton, join in the labor contract previously entered into by Barberton on April 24, 1987, or conduct joint labor negotiations with Barberton. The trial court, however, refused to void the April 24, 1987 agreement on equitable grounds, as the loss to AFSCME and the employees would be substantial compared to the benefit gained through the voiding of the labor contract.
The trial court also determined that AFSCME is the certified bargaining unit representative of both Barberton employees and the board employees, and will continue in the relationship until changed by the State Employment Relations Board ("SERB"). In addition, the trial court denied attorney fees to Harrison for legal fees incurred in bringing the taxpayer's action. Both the board and AFSCME now appeal from the trial court's order, and Barberton cross-appeals.
The trial court correctly determined that the board and Barberton are separate entities. In Harrison, supra, we held that pursuant to R.C. 3709.05, Barberton may create a board different in structure from the structure set forth in R.C. 3709.05 under its home rule authority in the Ohio Constitution. Id. at 127-128, 550 N.E.2d at 984. Nevertheless, Barberton's home rule authority extends only to powers the state legislature allows. Id. at 127, 550 N.E.2d at 984; see Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emp., Chapter No. 471 v. Twinsburg (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 180, 182, 522 N.E.2d 532, 534-535.
Generally, a health district, and the board of health formed thereunder, are state agencies. Johnson's Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Dept. of Health (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 28, 33, 567 N.E.2d 1018, 1023-1024; Bd. of Health of St. Bernard v. St. Bernard (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 49, 48 O.O.2d 57, 249 N.E.2d 888, paragraph two of the syllabus. As employees of state agencies, the employees of the health district and board of health formed thereunder are governed by state law. State, ex rel. Mowrer, v. Underwood (1940), 137 Ohio St. 1, 17 O.O. 298, 27 N.E.2d 773.
We have previously held that R.C. 3709.05 allows Barberton to create the board pursuant to Barberton's home rule powers. However, in regard to negotiations with employees of the board, there is no legislative authority which allows Barberton to control the employees of the board. Therefore, the board is a separate entity from Barberton and the board's employees are subject to state law. See, e.g., R.C. 4117.10(D). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in determining that the board and Barberton are separate employer entities. AFSCME's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
The trial court determined that the board has the option of (1) negotiating a new labor contract with its employees without participation from Barberton, (2) joining in the April 24, 1987 labor contract already negotiated by Barberton, or (3) entering into joint labor negotiations with Barberton. The board [1992 SERB 4-81] Barberton and AFSCME assert that the trial court's order allowing a choice of these three options is in error.
At the time of the filing of this action, the employees of both the board and Barberton were members of a single bargaining unit. In addition, AFSCME was the certified exclusive employee representative of this combined employee bargaining unit. AFSCME negotiated with Barberton without participation from the board and entered into the April 24, 1987 agreement.
R.C. 4117.06(A) provides:
There are two methods in which the appropriate employee bargaining unit may be established. First, a petition for election or request for recognition may be filed with SERB by either the proposed exclusive employee representative or the employee unit which seeks to be represented. R.C. 4117.05; 4117.07. In such petition or request for recognition, the composition of the bargaining unit seeking representation must be set forth. Id. SERB must then determine if the proposed bargaining unit is the appropriate bargaining unit for that particular group of employees. R.C. 4117.06. Having determined that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Cater v. N. Olmsted
...avoid reversal, unless the court's decision was plainly wrong, which does not appear from this record. Accord Harrison v. Judge (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 766, 772, 591 N.E.2d 704, 708. The denial of attorney fees, therefore, is Actionability as Taxpayer Suit North Olmsted argues that the purpos......
-
State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown
...intended city health departments and city health districts to be state agencies for labor relations purposes. In Harrison v. Judge (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 766, 591 N.E.2d 704, appellant AFSCME raised the same argument. See 199 Ohio Supreme Court Briefs and Records (5th Series), case No. 91-11......
-
Morris v. Macedonia City Council, 94-1996
...that the allowance of attorney fees in a taxpayer action is entirely within the sound discretion of the court. Harrison v. Judge (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 766, 591 N.E.2d 704; Billington v. Cotner (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 17, 18, 66 O.O.2d 9, 10, 305 N.E.2d 805, 807. The allowance of attorney fees......
-
Local No. 74, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees v. Board of Health, City of Warren, Ohio, 97-LW-4624
...only after it learned that it had received no bids from qualified candidates within the bargaining unit. Additionally, we conclude that Harrison, supra, not dispositive of the issue in the case at bar, as it is applicable to this matter only for the proposition that the Board's employees ar......