# Communications Workers of America v. State Employment Relations Board

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 21, 1988 · 38 Ohio St. 3d 602

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760646

## Case

- **Full name:** Communications Workers of America/Council of Public Workers v. State Employment Relations Board
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 21, 1988
- **Citations:** 38 Ohio St. 3d 602; 528 N.E.2d 566; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 301
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Douglas
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760646

## Opinion text

Douglas, J.,
dissenting. I dissent to the majority’s dismissal of this appeal as having been improvidently allowed.
The instant case presents this court with an excellent opportunity to address a vital question of great public interest and to announce a state-wide rule. The specific question presented is whether the State Employment Relations Board’s dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge is a final order which may be appealed to the court of common pleas under R.C. 4117.13(D). This important question has never been addressed by this court. As a result of today’s decision dismissing the instant appeal, trial courts and courts of appeals must continue to struggle with the issue without any guidance from this court, a situation which will inevitably cause confusion and conflict. Moreover, the parties to this appeal, having expended much time, energy and expense in pursuing *603 their cause in this court, are denied the definitive answer which they have every right to believe is forthcoming.
I cannot concur in the majority’s decision to squander this opportunity to formulate an authoritative rule on the important question presented by this case. Accordingly, I dissent.
Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6760646. Public record. Not legal advice.