United Auto Workers, Local Union 1112 v. Philomena

Decision Date10 March 1998
Docket NumberNos. 97APE01-69,97APE01-100,s. 97APE01-69
Citation700 N.E.2d 936,121 Ohio App.3d 760
Parties, 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2615 UNITED AUTO WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 1112 et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. PHILOMENA et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants. *
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

McTigue & Brooks, and Donald J. McTigue, Columbus, for appellants and cross-appellees United Auto Workers, Local Union 1112 & 1714, United Auto Workers Region 2, U.A.W. Ohio State Political Action Committee, Anthony Zone and Robert Chambers.

Christopher Lopez, Troy; Kalniz, Iorio & Feldstein Co., L.P.A., Ted Iorio and Christine A. Reardon, Toledo, for appellants and cross-appellees, Ohio Education Assn. and Affiliates.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Sutton, David M. Gormley and Diane R. Richards, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees and cross-appellants, Bob Taft, Secretary of State, Ohio Elections Commission, and Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General.

Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, Diane Politi and James A. Philomena, Youngstown, for appellee and cross-appellant James A. Philomena.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal and cross-appeal presently before this court brings to our consideration the constitutionality of legislation included in Ohio's Campaign Finance Reform Act, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 8 ("S.B. 8"), and presents significant free speech and association issues.

Enactment of S.B. 8 in 1995 brought about major changes in Ohio's campaign finance law. Notable in the present appeal are certain provisions affecting public employees and labor organizations. As to public employees, S.B. 8 prohibits them from making voluntary political contributions by way of payroll deduction, and it prohibits a public employee from being solicited for, or from soliciting, contributions while the employee is performing official duties or is in an area where official state business occurs. As to labor organizations, S.B. 8 prohibits them from using their money to aid and support a political party, a candidate for public office, a political action committee ("PAC"), a legislative campaign fund, or any organization that supports or opposes any such candidate, for any partisan political purpose, or for political fundraising. Labor organizations wishing to participate in this political activity must do so indirectly through a voluntary PAC which it must establish and administer. S.B. 8 also restricts from whom labor organizations may solicit contributions for its PAC and requires the solicitation to be in writing and limited to no more than four times a year.

Plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees brought an action challenging the facial constitutionality of S.B. 8 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief halting its implementation and enforcement. The action was originally filed in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas and was transferred to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on August 11, 1995.

Plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees are as follows: United Auto Workers Local Unions 1112 and 1714, unincorporated labor associations; United Auto Workers Regions 2 and 2B, unincorporated labor associations; United Auto Workers Ohio State Political Action Committee; Anthony Zone, the president of and a member of UAW Local 1112; Robert Chambers, the president of and a member of UAW Local 1714; the Ohio Education Association, an incorporated association; the Ohio Education Association-Educators Political Action Committee ("OEA-EPAC"); the Youngstown Education Association; John Senzarin, a member of the Youngstown Education Association who contributes to OEA-EPAC through payroll deduction; the Youngstown State University Chapter of the Ohio Education Associations; and the Poland Education Association, OEA/NEA ("appellants").

Defendants-appellees and cross-appellants are as follows: James Philomena, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney; Secretary of State Bob Taft; the Ohio Elections Commission; and Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery ("appellees").

Before the common pleas court issued its decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, issued a decision on a preliminary injunction action enjoining enforcement of the following sections of the Ohio Revised Code as amended by S.B. 8: R.C. 3517.082(B)(3), 3517.082(D), 3517.09(C), 3599.031(H), and 3599.031(I) as it affects contracts in existence on the effective date of S.B. 8. The district court denied the requested preliminary injunction against R.C. 3599.03(A) and (B), 3517.102(D)(1), and 3517.092(F)(1) and (2). Toledo Area AFL-CIO Council v. Pizza (N.D.Ohio 1995), 898 F.Supp. 554. The district court subsequently lifted the injunction as to R.C. 3517.082(B)(3). Toledo Area AFL-CIO Council v. Pizza (N.D.Ohio 1995), 907 F.Supp. 263.

Following a consolidated bench trial on the merits of the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and the hearing on appellants' application for a preliminary injunction, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision and order finding unconstitutional R.C. 3517.082(D)'s requirements that all solicitation of contributions for a labor organization's PAC be in writing and limited to four solicitations per year and enjoining enforcement of those provisions of R.C. 3517.082(D). As to the remaining challenged provisions of S.B. 8, the court found them constitutional and denied injunctive relief. Both sides appeal the trial court's decision and order.

Nine assignments of error are presented for review. Appellants OEA, OEA-EPAC, the Youngstown Education Association, John Senzarin, the Youngstown State University Chapter of OEA, and the Poland Education Association raise and argue assignments of error one through four; the UAW affiliated appellants raise and argue assignments of error five through nine. The assignments of error are as follow:

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1:

"The Trial Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code § 3599.031(H) and said Code provision's prohibition of all payroll deduction of voluntary political contributions from public employee pay checks, therefore terminating Intervenors-Appellants' collectively bargained check off agreements and individual payroll deduction authorizations. Relevant to payroll deductions the Trial Court further erred in upholding the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code § 3599.031(I), which prohibits a public employee labor union and public employer from collectively bargaining any agreement allowing payroll deduction of voluntary political contributions which is contrary to Ohio Revised Code § 3599.031(H).

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2:

"The Trial Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code § 3517.092(F), and said Code provision's vague and overbroad restrictions upon the time, place, and manner of solicitations by and from public employees to political action committees, therefore permitting the obstruction of Intervenors-Appellants' efforts to communicate with their members in the workplace. Relevant to the time, place, and manner restrictions, the Trial Court further erred in failing to address, and thereby implicitly upholding, Ohio Revised Code § 3517.99(N)(1) and said provision's declaration that violation of the vague and overbroad restrictions of Ohio Revised Code § 3517.092(F) constitute a first degree misdemeanor.

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3:

"The Trial Court, while properly declaring unconstitutional the provisions of Ohio Revised Code § 3517.082(D) which require a labor organization's solicitation of contributions from its members to be in writing, and not made more than four times during each calendar year, erred in failing to also specifically declare unconstitutional Ohio Revised Code § 3517.082(E), which prohibits public employee labor organizations from collectively bargaining any agreement contrary to Ohio Revised Code § 3517.082(D)'s restrictions.

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4:

"The Trial Court erred in failing to order a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining implementation of the Ohio Revised Code provisions challenged in Assignments of Error No. 1, 2 and 3 herein.

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5:

"The Trial Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code §§ 3599.03(A) and (B), which prohibit the use of labor unions' funds or property to support or oppose a candidate or political party or for any partisan political purpose.

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6:

"The Trial Court erred in failing to decide the constitutional challenge to Revised Code § 3599.03(F), which treats unincorporated associations other than labor unions more favorably than labor unions.

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 7:

"The Trial Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code §§ 3517.082(D), 3517.09(C) and 3599.031(B), with respect to mandatory notices required in connection with solicitation of contributions.

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8:

"The Trial Court erred in failing to decide the constitutional challenge to Revised Code §§ 3517.08(C), 3517.08(B)(2), 3517.102(B)(6)(b)(ii), 3517.102(B)(6)(b)(iii), and 3517.102(B)(6)(d), which treat 'continuing associations', political parties and 'legislative campaign funds' more favorably than labor unions or labor union political action committees.

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 9:

"The Trial Court erred in failing to decide the constitutional challenge to Revised Code § 3517.082(B)(3), which restricts the pool of persons from whom contributions may be solicited."

When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the state's interest in the contested statute is a key component of the analytical framework. Although Ohio does not have formal legislative history, the record contains evidence addressing the state's reasons for enacting S.B. 8.

During the 121st General Assembly, Senator Robert R. Cupp, Chairperson of the Ohio Senate Campaign Finance Reform...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Magda v. Ohio Elections Comm'n
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • July 21, 2016
    ... ... the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 1 and Article I, Section 11 ... Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1984), 466 U.S. 485, ... United Auto Workers Local Union 1112 v. Philomena, 121 Ohio ... ...
  • State v. Valdez
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 14, 2017
    ... ... court a postconviction motion citing the United States Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v ... , 475 N.E.2d 1321 (10th Dist.1984); United Auto Workers , Local Union 1112 v ... Philomena , 121 ... ...
  • Sanger v. Dennis
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 2006
    ... ... SANGER; American Federation of Teachers, Local 858, a Colorado membership organization; Colorado ... a "membership organization" such as a labor union is permitted to establish a "small donor ... United States Constitution protect ... Page 414 ... elected to their position by union." United Auto Workers, Local Union 1112 v. Philomena, 121 Ohio ... ...
  • Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 2000
    ... ... , that is, the markets other than the United States, and the needs of the foreign consumers, ... of a permanent injunction); United Auto Workers, Local 1112 v. Philomena (1998), 121 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT