expressing concern over the notion that no statute enacted pursuant to Section 34 may ever be held unconstitutional based on any other provision in the Ohio Constitution
How later courts described this case
- expressing concern over the notion that no statute enacted pursuant to Section 34 may ever be held unconstitutional based on any other provision in the Ohio Constitution
- noting that the statutory section involved in the case was part of the Ohio Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act, R.C. Chapter 4117
- upholding a state law mandating a bargaining procedure in disputes between public employers and employees because it “serves the purpose of promoting orderly public sector labor relations”
- noting that Article II, Section 34 of Ohio's Constitution, which uses words such as health and welfare, is "so clear and unequivocal."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting. For the reasons stated in the majority opinion in Rocky River v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 196 , 530 N.E. 2d 1 , and in Justice Wright’s analysis of Section 34, Article II of the *21 Constitution of Ohio, and because of the effect the majority opinion herein would have upon the substantial case law of Ohio regarding home-rule authority of charter cities, I dissent from the majority opinion.