Opinion

Ohio Ass'n of Public School Employees v. Dayton City School District Board of Education

  • 59 Ohio St. 3d 159
  • 572 N.E.2d 80
  • 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2296
  • 1991 Ohio LEXIS 1118
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
May 15, 1991
Status
Published
Author
Resnick
On the bench
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Snick, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
50 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.1%

stating that “a decision by SERB whether or not to issue a complaint in an unfair labor practice case is not reviewable pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119 or R.C. 4117.02(M) and 4117.13(D)”

How later courts described this case

  • stating that “a decision by SERB whether or not to issue a complaint in an unfair labor practice case is not reviewable pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119 or R.C. 4117.02(M) and 4117.13(D)”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

concurring. I concur in the majority opinion but write separately. Our entire government is established on a system of checks and balances. This fact is true of all governmental bodies. However, there is no review pursuant to R.C. 4117.02 when the State Employment Relations Board, composed of three individuals, finds no probable cause as to whether to prosecute an unfair labor practice claim.

As stated by the majority, “* * * the process of investigating and evaluating an unfair labor practice charge filed by a private party is clearly not a quasi-judicial adjudication.” The Eighth Appellate District in Boieru v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1988), 54 Ohio App. 3d 23, 27 , 560 N.E. 2d 801, 806 , has noted that “[t]he decision to prosecute or not to prosecute a[n] [unfair labor practice] claim is a purely ex-ecutory and nonjudicial function.” This is apparent from the fact that no hearing or notices are required.

A non-judicial function cannot be made into a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02. All that took place in this matter was an investigation, which is ministerial rather than quasi-judicial. Under R.C. 119.06, in order for an adjudication order to be valid, a hearing must be afforded in accordance with R.C. 119.01 to 119.13. R.C. 4117.02 has no provision for an adjudication hearing prior to the board’s making its initial probable cause determination.

In order to hold that this initial decision finding no probable cause is a final appealable order, this court would have to redraft R.C. 4117.02. It is not the function of this court to legislate. However, I strongly recommend that the General Assembly review R.C. 4117.02 to decide whether it is advisable to entrust unbridled discretion in a three-member board to determine whether probable cause exists to prosecute an unfair labor practice charge. I believe it is advisable that these decisions be reviewed, otherwise excessive authority is held by one agency. To be true to the system of checks and balances by which our government operates, R.C. 4117.02 should be legislatively amended.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.