Lucki v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

• Decision Date: 20 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. 11AP–43.,11AP–43.
• Parties: LUCKI, Appellant, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

966 N.E.2d 308

LUCKI, Appellant,

v.OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, Appellee.

No. 11AP–43.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Decided Oct. 20, 2011.

Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, L.L.P., Jason R. Bristol, Joshua R. Cohen, and Thomas A. Downie ; and The Lazzaro Law Firm, L.L.C., and Anthony J. Lazzaro, Cleveland, for appellant.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Randall W. Knutti and Christopher P. Conomy, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

BRYANT, Presiding Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Anthony Lucki, appeals from a judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims dismissing his action against defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of R.C. 4117.10(A). Because the Court of Claims properly determined that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's action, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} At all times relevant to this appeal, plaintiff was employed as a corrections officer at the North Central Correctional Institution and was paid an hourly wage. The bargaining unit, represented by the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association/AFSCME Local 11, AFL–CIO, included plaintiff's position.

{¶ 3} On July 16, 2010, after having filed initial and amended class-action complaints, plaintiff filed a second amended class-action complaint alleging that defendant had violated R.C. 4111.03(A) by failing to pay him and other members of the purported class for daily post-shift work at the statutorily prescribed overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular wages. Plaintiff asserted that the post-shift work was an "integral and indispensable part of [the corrections officers'] principal activities" and included "waiting for an officer on the next shift to relieve them from their post, handing over their equipment to the relieving officer, briefing the receiving officer on what happened on their shift, logging in and logging out, and returning other equipment." Plaintiff further asserted that he and the purported class members were required to complete the post-shift work in ten minutes or less, or be subject to discipline. Plaintiff sought not only an order certifying the class pursuant to Civ.R. 23, but both actual and liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime pay.

{¶ 4} On July 30, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, contending that, pursuant to the terms of R.C. 4117.10(A), the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's R.C. 4111.03 claim because the collective-bargaining agreement addresses the matter at issue, governs its resolution through the grievance and arbitration procedures in the agreement, and leaves the Court of Claims without jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff argued in response that because no provision of the collective-bargaining agreement expressly addressed and excluded the payment of overtime compensation for post-shift work, his claim was not subject to dismissal under R.C. 4117.10(A). The trial court agreed with defendant, determined that R.C. 4117.10(A) controlled, and concluded that the arbitration clause in the collective-bargaining agreement eliminated the court's jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims.

II. Assignment of Errors

{¶ 5} Plaintiff appeals, assigning the following five errors:

1. The Court of Claims erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claim that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC") violated Ohio wage-and-hour law, R.C. § 4111.03, by failing to pay Plaintiff and other correctional

officers for work they are required to continue to perform on a daily basis after their scheduled shifts have ended.

2. The Court of Claims erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's R.C. § 4111.03 claim by reason of R.C. 4117.10(A), which prescribes the relationship between collective bargaining agreements and the employee rights established by state and local laws.

3. The Court of Claims erroneously omitted from its analysis the express provision of R.C. 4117.10(A) that where a collective bargaining agreement "makes no specification about a matter, the public employer and public employees are subject to all applicable state or local laws or ordinances pertaining to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for public employees." R.C. § 4117.10(A).

4. The Court of Claims erroneously failed to consider the Supreme Court's declaration, construing R.C. 4117.10(A), that "[i]n order to negate statutory rights of public employees, a collective bargaining agreement must use language with such specificity as to explicitly demonstrate that the intent of the parties was to preempt statutory rights." State ex rel. Ohio Ass'n of Public School Employees v. Batavia Local School District Bd. of Ed. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 191 (Syllabus by the Court).

5. The Court of Claims erred in concluding that R.C. 4117.10(A) bars Plaintiff's R.C. § 4111.03 claim in this case, where no provision of the collective bargaining agreement specifies that correctional officers will continue to work after their scheduled shifts have ended or must do so without pay.

{¶ 6} Plaintiff's five assignments of error are interrelated and will be addressed jointly. Together they assert that because no provision of the collective-bargaining agreement at issue specifically excludes overtime compensation for post-shift work, plaintiff's statutory right under R.C. 4111.03(A) to receive such pay was not preempted and the Court of Claims therefore has jurisdiction to adjudicate his claim.

III. Subject–Matter Jurisdiction

{¶ 7} The standard of review for determining a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is whether the complaint raises any cause of action cognizable in the forum. Crable v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. , 10th Dist. No. 09AP–191, 2010-Ohio-788, 2010 WL 740141, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 77, 537 N.E.2d 641. An appellate court reviews de novo a trial court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Crable at ¶ 8, citing Meccon, Inc. v. Univ. of Akron, 182 Ohio App.3d 85, 2009-Ohio-1700, 911 N.E.2d 933.

{¶ 8} R.C. 4117.10(A) governs the relationship between a collective-bargaining agreement and all applicable state and local laws. It provides that "[a]n agreement between a public employer and an exclusive representative entered into pursuant to this chapter governs the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of public employment covered by the agreement." Id . According to the statute, "[i]f the agreement provides for a final and binding arbitration of grievances, public employers, employees, and employee organizations are subject solely to that grievance procedure," meaning "the state personnel board of review or civil service commissions have no jurisdiction to receive and determine any appeals relating to matters that were the subject of a final and binding grievance procedure." Id. If, however, "no agreement exists" or "an agreement makes no specification about a matter, the public employer and public employees are subject to all applicable state or local laws or ordinances pertaining to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for public employees." Id . The statute clarifies that "this chapter prevails over any and all other conflicting laws, resolutions, provisions, present or future, except as otherwise specified in this chapter or as otherwise specified by the general assembly."

{¶ 9} Defendant couples the statutory language with our decision in Null v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 152, 738 N.E.2d 105 to contend that the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement control plaintiff's claims. In Null, the plaintiff, an hourly employee subject to the provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement, filed suit in common pleas court, alleging that her public employer violated R.C. 4111.03(A) in failing to pay her overtime compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, concluding that R.C. 4117.10(A) controlled the plaintiff's claim and deprived the court of jurisdiction due to the arbitration clause in the collective-bargaining agreement.

{¶ 10} On appeal, this court initially acknowledged the Supreme Court of Ohio's interpretation of R.C. 4117.10(A) as articulated in Streetsboro Edn. Assn. v. Streetsboro City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 288, 626 N.E.2d 110, noting that "[p]ursuant to R.C. 4117.10(A) when no state or local law addresses a matter addressed in a collective bargaining agreement, no conflict exists between the agreement and the law, and the agreement governs the parties as to that matter." Null at 155, 738 N.E.2d 105, citing Streetsboro at 291, 626 N.E.2d 110. Similarly, "when a collective bargaining agreement does not address a matter but a state or local law does," once "again no conflict arises: pursuant to R.C. 4117.10(A) state or local law generally would apply to a public employer and its public employees regarding ‘wages, hours and terms and conditions' of employment." Id. "When, however, a state or local law pertaining to a specific exception listed in R.C. 4117.10(A) conflicts with a provision in a collective bargaining agreement addressing the same matter, the law prevails and the provision of the collective bargaining agreement is unenforceable." On the other hand, "[i]f the conflict does not pertain to one of the specific exceptions listed in R.C. 4117.10(A), then the collective bargaining agreement prevails." Id.

{¶ 11} Guided by Streetsboro 's construction of R.C. 4117.10(A), Null noted that both the collective-bargaining agreement at issue there and R.C. 4111.03(A) addressed the issue of overtime compensation. The collective-bargaining agreement stated that "[e]mployees shall receive compensatory time or overtime pay for authorized work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per week." R.C. 4111.03(A)...