State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union 377 v. City of Youngstown, 76-773
| Decision Date | 15 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-773,76-773 |
| Citation | 50 Ohio St.2d 200,4 O.O.3d 387,364 N.E.2d 18 |
| Parties | , 4 O.O.3d 387 The STATE ex rel. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 377, and Moschella et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The Youngstown Sanitary Police Pension Fund was established by ordinance on December 16, 1935. Taxes to create and maintain the fund were and are levied pursuant to R.C. 741.64 (formerly G.C. 4637 and 4638).
Teamsters Local Union 377, and the seven sanitary policemen of Youngstown (appellants) commenced this mandamus action on March 4, 1975, in the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County. Appellants alleged that they had been employed by the city since the following dates:
Robert Moschella ... June 27, 1960
Al Decapua ......... February 16, 1971
Jacob R. Kent ...... February 16, 1971
Daniel Pecchio ..... April 20, 1960
Joseph M. Gabriel .. August 7, 1972
Edward L. Komsa .... June 1, 1956
Fed P. Vicarel ..... June 16, 1953
Their positions are in the classified civil service. They alleged that as city employees they were entitled to be covered by the state of Ohio's Public Employees Retirement System and that the city of Youngstown had a duty to so enroll them and pay whatever amount the system required; that the city was further obliged by statute to deduct from appellants' paychecks a similar amount and forward the same to the system; and that the city, an appellee herein, failed and refused to comply with the statutory scheme provided in R.C. Chapter 145. Appellants maintained further that such action by the city, if allowed to continue, will deprive them of their pension benefits under the statutes for which they have no adequate remedy at law and in the absence of court ordered relief they will suffer irreparable harm.
An alternative writ was issued on the same date requiring the respondents to show cause by March 31, 1975, why the have failed to comply with the statutes. Appellees' answer, while admitting the public employment status of the relators, denied that they were entitled to coverage under R.C. Chapter 145, and further alleged that they were specifically excluded by law. Respondents concluded their answer with the allegation that the relators were guilty of laches, and, finally, that Messrs. Moschella, Pecchio, Komsa and Vicarel's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, R.C. 2305.07.
On July 29, 1975, the judgment entry of the trial court allowing the writ was filed. The court ordered appellants' enrollment in the Public Employees Retirement System, and further decreed that the city was liable for both the employer's contribution and the omitted members' contribution not made by payroll deduction, from the date of employment forward. The court concluded its judgment entry with the following language:
A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment ordering appellants' enrollment in the Public Employees Retirement System as of their respective dates of hire, but limited the liability of the city of Youngstown for deficiency contributions to six years prior to the filing of the complaint.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of appellants' motion to certify the record.
Bavis & Bavis and Mary C. T. Bavis, Columbus, for appellants.
William J. Higgins, director of law, and James E. Roberts, Youngstown, for appellees.
The sole question at issue here is the effect, if any, of a Revised Code section statute of limitations, set forth in R.C. 2305.07, * upon the mandatory legislation concerning the Public Employees Retirement System created in R.C. Chapter 145. A majority of the Court of Appeals determined " $ $ $ that R.C. 2305.07 bars the claims of $ $ $ (appellants) beyond six years from the filing of the complaint $ $ $." We do not agree.
The rights and obligations concerning employer-employee contributions to the Public Employees Retirement System are clearly set forth in R.C. Chapter 145.
R.C. 145.47 provides in pertinent part:
R.C. 145.48 provides as follows:
"(F) Such employer obligation shall include the normal and deficiency contributions and employer liability resulting from omitted member contributions required under Section 145.47 of the Revised Code, but not made by payroll deduction. * * * "
While the appellate court implicitly concedes the mandatory requirements of these two specific sections, it seeks to modify their applicability by applying the statute of limitations, R.C. 2305.07, in a most unusual manner. The last phrase of that section, " * * * shall be brought within six years after the cause thereof accrued," is interpreted as meaning the six...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Mallory v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Bd.
...Pension Fund Bd. of Trustees (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 62, 65-66, 647 N.E.2d 486, 489; State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union 377 v. Youngstown (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 200, 205, 4 O.O.3d 387, 390, 364 N.E.2d 18, 21. In the case at bar, the commission was established and Kura was appointed as the Fra......
-
Verhoff v. Verhoff
...Oker v. Ameritech Corp., 89 Ohio St.3d 223, 224, 729N.E.2d 1177, 1179 (2000), quoting State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union 377 v. City of Youngstown, 50 Ohio St.2d 200, 203-204, 364 N.E.2d 18, 20 (1977). For this reason, "[a] cause of action for breach of contract does not accrue until the c......
-
Zindroski v. Parma City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ.
...resulting from such act only from the time that actual damage ensues.'" Lordstown at 256, quoting State ex rel. Local Union 377 v. Youngstown (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 200, 203-204, 364 N.E.2d 18. {¶ 26} The Ohio Supreme Court further reasoned: {¶ 27} "Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Lysyj (197......
-
Kozma v. AEP Energy Services, Inc., 2005 Ohio 1157 (OH 3/17/2005)
...point that the time within which a cause of action is to be commenced begins to run." State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union 377 v. Youngstown (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 200, 203-204, 4 O.O.3d 387, 364 N.E.2d 18. Thus, we must determine when (if at all, which issue is not before us) the actions of ......