State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown
Decision Date | 19 June 1996 |
Docket Number | AFL-CIO,No. 95-1378,95-1378 |
Citation | 75 Ohio St.3d 618,665 N.E.2d 209 |
Parties | , 1996 SERB 4-25 The STATE ex rel. GABRIEL et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN et al.; Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,, et al., Appellants. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Ronald H. Janetzke, Special Counsel to the President, and R. Sean Grayson, General Counsel, for appellants.
Appellants assert in several propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in several respects. As a preliminary matter, since appellants are appealing from a judgment which denied the writ they were contesting, it must be determined if they possess standing to appeal.
Ohio Contract Carriers Assn. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1942), 140 Ohio St. 160, 23 O.O. 369, 42 N.E.2d 758, syllabus; Ohio Domestic Violence Network v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 438, 439, 605 N.E.2d 13, 14.
Appellants and various city officials were parties to the mandamus action filed in the court of appeals. The court of appeals determined in part that city board of health employees are employees of a state agency who are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the city and AFSCME. If not appealed the court of appeals' determination might be res judicata, thereby precluding AFSCME from bargaining on behalf of city board of health employees. See, generally, Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus ("A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action."). Therefore, appellants are aggrieved and possess the requisite standing to contest the foregoing determination by the court of appeals.
Appellants also challenge the court of appeals' failure to grant their motions to dismiss or for summary judgment based on their arguments that the sanitarians failed to exhaust their contractual and administrative remedies. However, since judgment on the sanitarians' mandamus claim for retroactive wage increases was ultimately denied in favor of appellants and the respondents city officials, the court need not issue an advisory opinion to discuss whether additional reasons supported denial of the requested mandamus relief. See, e.g., Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 551 N.E.2d 172, 174 ( ); Tschantz v. Ferguson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655, 657 (). Therefore, we do not address these latter contentions.
The court of appeals' determination that city board of health employees are state employees is consistent with precedent. See, generally, Johnson's Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Dept. of Health (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 28, 33, 567 N.E.2d 1018, 1023-1024; St. Bernard Bd. of Health v. St. Bernard (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 49, 48 O.O.2d 57, 249 N.E.2d 888, paragraph two of the syllabus; State ex rel. Mowrer v. Underwood (1940), 137 Ohio St. 1, 17 O.O. 298, 27 N.E.2d 773. Appellants contend that Johnson's Markets should be "clarified," since the General Assembly never 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. 91-1106, AFSCME's Nov. 15, 1991 brief, at 27-29. We rejected AFSCME's contentions in this regard and adopted the court of appeals' determination in Harrison that the city health district, and the board of health formed thereunder, are state agencies, and that employees of the board of health are governed by state law. Id., 63 Ohio St.3d at 768, 591 N.E.2d at 705-706. Therefore, the court of appeals in the case at bar did not err in concluding that employees of the Youngstown Board of Health are state employees. In effect, the board of health is a separate entity from the city, and the board's employees are subject to state law. Id.; see, also, State ex rel. Fenwick v. Finkbeiner (Feb. 25, 1994), Lucas App. No. L-93-367, unreported, 1994 WL 67868, reversed on other grounds, State ex rel. Fenwick v. Finkbeiner (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 457, 650 N.E.2d 896.
The court of appeals further determined that employees of the Youngstown Board of Health are not within the bargaining unit of the collective bargaining agreement between the city and AFSCME due to the employees' status as state employees. Local 2312 of AFSCME is the deemed certified bargaining agent for certain employees of Youngstown. The deemed certified bargaining unit contained employees of the city health board, including sanitarians. 1 Subsequent collective bargaining agreements between the city and AFSCME also included health board employees in the bargaining unit.
In Harrison, supra, 63 Ohio St.3d at 770-771, 591 N.E.2d at 707, we adopted the court of appeals' opinion, which held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bryan v. Chytil
...matter, an "'[a]ppeal lies only on behalf of a party aggrieved by the final order appealed from.'" State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown, 75 Ohio St.3d 618, 619, 665 N.E.2d 209 (1996), quoting Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 140 Ohio St. 160, 42 N.E.2d 758 (1942), syll......
-
State v. Bates
... ... at syllabus. See also State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown , 75 Ohio St.3d 618, 619, 665 N.E.2d 209 (1996). Accordingly, it follows ... ...
-
In re C.M., Case No. 17CA16
... ... The court further allowed the father's attorney to state his reasons for requesting a continuance. The court decided to take both ... before a court may consider the merits of a legal claim.'" State ex rel ... Merrill v ... Ohio Dept ... of Nat ... Resources , 130 Ohio St.3d 30, ... Gabriel v ... Youngstown , 75 Ohio St.3d 618, 619, 665 N.E.2d 209 (1996), quoting ... ...
-
In re K.K.
... ... S ., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92816, 2009-Ohio-5496, 24, citing State v ... Schiebel , 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 564 N.E.2d 54 (1990). Judgments ... before a court may consider the merits of a legal claim.'" State ex rel ... Merrill v ... Ohio Dept ... of Nat ... Resources , 130 Ohio St.3d 30, ... Gabriel v ... Youngstown , 75 Ohio St.3d 618, 619, 665 N.E.2d 209 (1996), quoting ... ...