State ex rel. Local 330, Akron Fire Fighters Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. City of Akron, AFL-CIO

• Decision Date: 28 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-1492,AFL-CIO,77-1492
• Citation: 54 Ohio St.2d 448,8 O.O.3d 443,377 N.E.2d 512
• Parties: , 8 O.O.3d 443 The STATE ex rel. LOCAL 330, AKRON FIRE FIGHTERS ASSN.,, et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF AKRON et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 448

54 Ohio St.2d 448

377 N.E.2d 512, 8 O.O.3d 443

The STATE ex rel. LOCAL 330, AKRON FIRE FIGHTERS ASSN., AFL-CIO, et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF AKRON et al., Appellants.

No. 77-1492.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 28, 1978.

Relators are Local 330 of the Akron Fire Fighters Association and its officials. Respondents are the city of Akron, its mayor, the director of finance, and members of the Akron City Council.

Section 70a of the Charter of the city of Akron, adopted by the electorate of that city on November 5, 1968, provides in pertinent part:

"The salary of employees of the Police Division and Fire Department will be adjusted in April of each year based upon data published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the 'escalator' enacted by the City Council in December, 1966, being Ordinance No. 1103-1966, and/or by negotiating with the Administrators of the City of Akron."

Pursuant to Section 70a of the Charter, four negotiating sessions relating to salary adjustments and other matters for the period beginning on April 1, 1977, were conducted from February 17, 1977, through April 27, 1977. In August and September of 1977, respondents presented relators a two-year contract offer with an eight percent salary increase for the first year, and a seven percent salary increase for the second year.

On September 23, 1977, relators filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals requesting that court to order respondents to do all things necessary in implementing a 10.7 percent pay increase retroactively to April 1, 1977. Relators contended, in part, that because the respondents' latest offer of settlement represented the limit of salary adjustments for a two-year period not subject to negotiation, they had no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law in obtaining their salary increase of 10.7 percent allegedly mandated by law.

In their answer, respondents denied that their settlement offer made to relators in August and September of 1977 was non-negotiable and raised as an affirmative defense that pursuant to the charter provision, respondents were pursuing a prescribed pattern of settlement in that they were ready, willing, and able to negotiate with the relators at any time and place of relators' choosing. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss contending that there was no clear legal duty for the court to enforce.

On November 1, 1977, the court held that relators' complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action and overruled respondents' motion to dismiss. It further ordered that factual matters be submitted by the parties on or before December 5, 1977, by deposition, stipulation or interrogatories.

On December 8, 1977, the court, finding that the parties had ceased negotiations when relators' complaint was originally filed, issued a peremptory order requiring that the parties proceed with negotiations in good faith as required by Section 70a of the charter, and that such negotiations be conducted, each working day, all day, until the court concluded its review of the case or the dispute was finally settled. It further ordered that a written progress report be submitted to the presiding judge every five days.

On December 22, 1977, the court, finding that the parties had reached an impasse in negotiations, and that the 10.7 percent salary increase was mandated by the electorate of Akron, issued the writ of mandamus ordering that respondents provide relators their...