State, ex rel. Internatl. Union of Operating Engineers, v. Cleveland, AFL-CI

• Decision Date: 12 February 1992
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,A,No. 90-1780,90-1780
• Citation: 584 N.E.2d 727,62 Ohio St.3d 537
• Parties: The STATE, ex rel. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, 18RA,ppellant, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 537

62 Ohio St.3d 537

584 N.E.2d 727

The STATE, ex rel. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, 18RA, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND et al., Appellees.

No. 90-1780.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Sept. 17, 1991.

Decided Feb. 12, 1992.

Wuliger, Fadel & Beyer, William Fadel and Kathleen M. Sasala, Cleveland, for appellant.

Craig S. Miller, Director of Law, and Franzetta D. Turner, Cleveland, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The case presents a single question: When negotiations between public employees represented by an exclusive bargaining agent and a city have not produced a collective bargaining agreement, will mandamus lie to resolve a wage dispute by compelling compliance with a city charter provision pursuant to R.C. 4117.10(A)? We find that it does, and reverse the decision of the court of appeals and allow the writ.

The city contends that mandamus is not appropriate because of the availability of other remedies, namely R.C. 4117.11, 4117.12 and 4117.14. Although the city characterizes the negotiation procedures of R.C. 4117.14 as "elaborate yet precise," it contends that this remedy is adequate and can lead to the relief which Local 18 seeks. R.C. 4117.14 prescribes certain procedures for settling disputes arising out of negotiations involving existing or initial collective bargaining agreements. If the procedures do not resolve the dispute, then noncritical employees, such as those represented by Local 18, are granted the right to strike. Thus, the city argues, the right to strike is an adequate remedy.

The city also argues, and the court of appeals held, that its failure to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement may be an unfair labor practice for which relief is available under R.C. 4117.12. If so, SERB would investigate the violation and, if probable cause were found, conduct a hearing. In the appropriate case an order would issue and temporary relief or a restraining order would be granted. In addition, by appeal to the court of common pleas from the order granting or denying relief, the court could enforce, modify or set aside the order.

Local 18 contends that city charter Section 191 specifically requires the city to pay its city construction equipment operators and master mechanics according to the prevailing wages in industry. In support, Local 18 points to an excerpt from Section 191:

"Only in the case of employees in those classifications for which the Council provided in 1979 a schedule of compensation in accordance with prevailing wages paid in the building and construction trades, the schedule established by the council shall be in accordance with prevailing rates of salary or compensation for such services."

Local 18 coordinates that excerpt with a reference to R.C. 4117.10(A):

" * * * Where no agreement exists or where 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. * * * " (Emphasis added.)

Here, there is no existing collective bargaining agreement.

The statutory remedies proposed by the city would not grant the relief sought by Local 18. The relief available to...