Ohio Supreme Court: City’s Refusal to Arbitrate Under Last-Chance Agreement Not an Unfair Labor Practice

An employee of the Department of Public Works was on a last-chance agreement when he committed another fault and was terminated. The union demanded arbitration, but the City refused per the terms of the last-chance agreement, which stated that, were the employee to engage in inappropriate workplace behavior, he would be subject to immediate termination without recourse to the grievance or arbitration provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement.

The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the City’s refusal to arbitrate a labor grievance was not an unfair labor practice and, therefore, the State Employment Relations Board did not have exclusive jurisdiction. When a complaint does not allege an unfair labor practice, then the Common Pleas Court may exercise jurisdiction. 

This holding reverses the Eighth District. The Eighth District had found that refusing arbitration substantively interfered with the employee’s collective-bargaining rights and, therefore, fell directly within the scope of the collective-bargaining rights created by R.C. 4117, and were under the exclusive jurisdiction of State Employment Relations Board. 

The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the right to arbitrate exists independently of R.C. 4117. In support, the court referred to R.C. 4117.10(A), which states that if the collective-bargaining agreement provides for a final and binding arbitration of grievances, the parties are subject solely to that grievance procedure. Although R.C. 4117.09(B)(1) requires collective-bargaining agreements to contain a grievance procedure, it does not require these agreements to contain an arbitration provision within the grievance procedure. Therefore, a mandatory arbitration provision is not solely enforceable by the State Employment Relation Board. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}