holding that once a right to collective bargaining is given to employees, as it had been by the Ohio Supreme Court, it may not be eliminated through the employer's own selection of the bargaining representative
How later courts described this case
- holding that once a right to collective bargaining is given to employees, as it had been by the Ohio Supreme Court, it may not be eliminated through the employer's own selection of the bargaining representative
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 1045 v. Polta, 59 Ohio App. 2d 283 (1977)
(1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 25, upon which plaintiff relied are inapposite.
The opinion
Paul W.. Brown, J.,
dissenting. Appellant takes the position that the appellee has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; that there is no state of facts that can be established which would give rise to the rights which-appellee asserts, since there is no substantive right to an^ election to determine which of two competing unions may represent the employees of the city of. Akron. Appellant, also posits that there exists'neither a statutory ground, nor a common law ground, Upon which to base a substantive tight-to 'an election under the. circumstances of this case and that equity will not suffice as a basis for the requested relief. ' . '
I-agree with the appellant’s assertions.