DDDD. Oq'OINqt AUG 2 4?009 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Al1G CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
|
|
- Lindsey Robertson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Oq'OINqt IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CITY OF CINCINNATI, Appellant, vs. STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, and FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE QUEEN CITY LODGE NO. 69, Appellees. CaseNo.: On Appeal from the Hamilton County Court of Appeals, First Appellate District DDDD Al1G CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE OF APPELLEE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, QUEEN CITY LODGE, NO. 69 John P. Curp ( ) City Solicitor Richard Ganulin ( ) Paula Boggs-Muething ( ) Assistant City Solicitors 801 Plum Street, Room 214 Cincinnati, Ohio (513) (513) Fax richard.ganulin@cincinnati-oh.gov Counsel for Appellant, City of Cincinnati AUG 2 4?009 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Stephen S. Lazarus ( ) Kimberly A. Rutowski ( ) Hardin, Lazarus, Lewis & Marks, LLC 30 Garfield Place Cincinnati, Ohio (513) (513) Fax stevelazarus(crhllmlaw.com krutowski@hllmlaw.com Counsel for Appellee, Queen City Lodge No. 69, Fraternal Order of Police Richard Cordray Ohio Attorney General Anne Light Hoke ( ) Assistant Ohio Attomey General 30 East Broad Street, 26a' Floor Columbus, Ohio Counsel for Appellee, SERB
2 THIS CASE IS NOT A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST This case is not a case of public or great general interest. It is a case where the City of Cincinnati ("City") seeks to unilaterally change the composition of a deemed certified collective bargaining unit that has been in existence since the enactment of Chapter 4117 of the Ohio Revised Code. SERB determined that the City committed an unfair labor practice when it forced the issue of bargaining unit composition to statutory impasse procedures. SERB refused to create a new way to alter bargaining units. The City wants this Court to ignore the State Employment Relations Board's ("SERB") expertise in interpreting and enforcing Chapter The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and the First District properly deferred to SERB's expertise and affirmed SERB's Order. This Court should decline jurisdiction. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Queen City Lodge No. 69, Fraternal Order of Police ("FOP") and the City of Cincinnati ("City") have been parties to written Collective Bargaining Agreements since The FOP represents two separate bargaining units, supervisors and nonsupervisors, each with their own bargaining agreement. When the Ohio legislature passed the Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 4117, in the 1980's, both bargaining units were recognized as "deemed certified" and the rank of "Lieutenant Colonel/Assistant Chief' ("Assistant Chief') has been included in the supervisory bargaining unit since that time. The Supervisory Labor Agreement also contemplates that the City may remove one of the Assistant Chiefs from the bargaining unit as set forth in the Recognition Clause at Article I of the Labor Agreement. 1
3 In August, 2001, Cincinnati City Council passed an ordinance that placed a Charter Amendment, "Issue 5," on the November 6, 2001 ballot. Council took this action despite the fact that the terms of "Issue 5" were inconsistent with the Labor Agreement negotiated by the City and the FOP and ratified by both parties in January, "Issue 5" was passed by the electorate in November, "Issue 5" purportedly allowed the City to discipline and appoint persons to the rank of Assistant Police Chief without regard to the civil service process, or currently existing contractual rights. However, the terms of "Issue 5" are subject to the negotiated provisions of the Labor Agreement. In fact, the Assistant Police Chief positions were the only positions affected by "Issue 5" that were protected under a collective bargaining agreement. To the contrary, the Assistant fire chiefs left the firefighter's bargaining unit long before "Issue 5" and other positions covered by Issue 5 were never part of any bargaining unit. The Unfair Labor Practice Charge ("ULP") at issue was filed based on the City forcing the issue of removing assistant police chiefs from the bargaining unit to impasse procedures. When negotiations of a collective bargaining agreement are unsuccessful, the parties proceed to the statutorily mandated impasse procedures of fact-finding and conciliation under O.R.C (C) and (G). Fact-finding is an advisory process that can be rejected by either party. The fact-finder has broad authority to adopt one of the parties' final positions or craft his/her own suggested resolution. If either party rejects the fact-finder's recommendations, the parties proceed to conciliation. Conciliation is final and binding arbitration for police unions and other public employees who are statutorily prevented from striking. Unlike fact-finding, at conciliation, the conciliator is required to adopt the final offer of one of the parties on each issue. 2
4 Negotiations Despite the fact that Issue 5 grandfathered current Assistant Chiefs, during negotiations for the Labor Agreement, including fact-finding, the City greatly expanded their demands in the name of consistency with Issue 5 for the Assistant Chiefs. "The City proposes removing references to "Assistant Chiefs" from all sections of the Supervisor's collective bargaining agreement. The City proposes removing the positions of "Assistant Chiefs" from the Supervisors' bargaining unit altogether." The FOP objected to the City taking bargaining unit composition to impasse. In its fact-finding Brief, the City stated that removing the Assistant Chiefs was necessary to be consistent with Issue 5. The fact-finder was not receptive to the City's position stating, "Issue 5 was a bad idea from its inception. It was good that it was not included in the last Agreement. It continues to be best left out of the Agreement. It is not reconunended." Despite the fact-finder's reconunendation, inconsistent with Issue 5, Cincinnati City Council voted by a margin of 7-2 to accept the fact-finder's recommendation. With this vote, any arguments suggesting a moral or legal obligation on the part of the City to follow Issue 5 or the "will of the voters" can no longer be taken seriously. Specifically, counsel for the City previously claimed that "City Council has stated that it is required to follow the requirements imposed by such language [Issue 5]." Council's vote to accept a fact-finder's report that was inconsistent with Issue 5 makes clear the lack of consistency in their position. At Conciliation, the City again argued that "removing the Assistant Chief classification from the bargaining unit for employees hired or promoted to the classification after the effective date of Charter Amendment Issue 5" was necessary to be 3
5 consistent with Issue 5. The FOP objected to the City taking bargaining unit composition to impasse. Conciliator Janet Goulet correctly rejected the city's claims and stated: "The Fact-Finder's recommendation stands. The language in the most recent CBA (current contract) stays and the FOP position to maintain current contract language in the Definition [and Recognition] section of this contract is ordered." The FOP filed 2005-ULP based on the City taking to impasse the proposals to remove the assistant police chiefs from the bargaining unit. The FOP filed 2005-ULP after the City negotiated individual employment contracts with Assistant Police Chiefs Michael Cureton and Vincent Demasi without the involvement of the FOP. The employment contracts contained provisions that directly contradicted the collective bargaining agreement. SERB found the City did commit an unfair labor practice in both cases. The City appealed both cases to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal of 2005-ULP after briefs were submitted. Both the trial court and the First District affirmed SERB's Order. II. ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION OF LAW Proposition of Law No. 1 During good faith public employment collective bargaining negotiations, a home-rule municipality trying to modify the composition of a collective bargaining unit to achieve consistency with the spirit of its Charter does not commit an unfair labor practice by using statutory conciliation procedures. The courts below properly upheld SERB's determination that the City committed a ULP by unilaterally pursuing to statutory impasse proposals deleting Assistant Chiefs from a deemed-certified bargaining unit. The City argues that Ohio statutes and common law authorize a public employer to utilize statutory impasse procedures. However, this is 4
6 not the law in Ohio. SERB and Ohio Supreme Court precedent recognize three ways to amend a deemed-certified bargaining unit: (1) challenge by another employee organization, (2) a joint petition by the union and the employer, or (3) language in the collective bargaining agreement detailing how amendments are permitted. A unilateral attempt by the employer to alter a deemed-certified bargaining unit is clearly not a recognized method. SERB detailed the history of deemed-certified bargaining units citing Section 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No.133, 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 336, 367: Exclusive recognition through a written contract, agreement, or memorandum of understanding by a public employer to an employee organization whether specifically stated or through tradition, custom, practice, election, or negotiation the employee organization has been the only employee organization representing all employees in the unit is protected subject to the time restriction in division (B) of section of the Revised Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of the act, any employee organization recognized as the exclusive representative shall be deemed certified until challenged by another employee organization under the provisions of this act and the State Employment Relations Board has certified an exclusive representative. i This Court addressed this issue in Ohio Council 8, AFSCME/AFL-CIO v. Cincinnati, stating "adjustments or alterations to deemed-certified collective bargaining units are not permitted until challenged by another employee organization."2 The Court clarified this ruling in State ex rel. Brecksville Edn. Assn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., stating, "[s]ection 4(A) of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 does not deprive State Employment Relations Board of jurisdiction to consider a petition jointly filed by.employer and an exclusive representative requesting SERB to amend composition of deemed certified bargaining 1 SERB Opinion , pp Ohio Council 8, AFSCME/AFL-CIO v. Cincinnati ( 1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 677, 635 N.E.2d 361, syllabus. 5
7 unit "3 The Court found the distinction between a unilateral and joint petition to be critical in its analysis stating: We find the distinction between unilateral and joint petitions to be dispositive for the following reasons: (1) The language of Section 4(A) does not expressly require that SERB forgo jurisdiction, and we decline to read such a requirement into the statute; (2) Co-operative solutions are the express objective of Ohio collective bargaining law... Though it is reasonable to conclude, as we did in Ohio Council 8, that the General Assembly intended to protect preexisting collective bargaining relationships from unilateral attack by employers, it does not necessarily follow that the General Assembly intended to forever freeze the composition of units extant on October 6, SERB has also taken the position that an employee organization cannot unilaterally petition to amend a deemed certified bargaining unit.5 In Ohio Council 8, AFSCME/AFL-CIO v. SERB, the collective bargaining agreement specified the method to alter the composition of the bargaining unit.6 This Court stated, "The Employer and the union in this case governed their relationship through a collective bargaining agreement. That agreement spoke to the issue of the make-up of the bargaining unit, and amendments thereto: '7 Under these conditions, the Court recognized that a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure was another way to deal with unit composition. In the case at bar, the agreement is silent on amendments to bargaining unit composition. Simply listing who is covered by the agreement in the Recognition Clause does not mandate that changes to unit composition are covered by the agreement. A mandatory subject of bargaining is defined as "all matters pertaining to wages, hours, or 3 State ex rel. Brecksville Edn. Assn. v. SERB (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 665, syllabus. 4 Id. at In re Groveport Madison Local School Dist. Bd of Ed, SERB ( ); In re Urbana City School Dist. Bd ofed, SERB ( ). 6 Ohio Council 8, AFSCME/AFL-CIO v. SERB (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 460, Id. emphasis added. 6
8 terms and other conditions of employment" under R.C The City argued that repudiation language in the Recognition Clause gives the City authority to unilaterally alter the composition of the bargaining unit. However, SERB reviewed the Recognition Clause and correctly determined that: The recognition clause in the CBA does not set forth any agreement between the FOP and the City regarding amendments to the composition of the deemed-certified bargaining unit. Rather, the clause states that the City agrees to recognize the FOP as the exclusive representative of the previously-defined "sworn members" of the City's Police Department. Thus, this language does not reflect the parties' agreement upon a process to amend the composition of the bargaining unit.a There is no language in the Recognition Clause addressing changes to bargaining unit composition. The trial court adopted the Magistrate's decision that specifically stated: "The court finds SERB's finding in this regard is based on substantial evidence on the record and specifically denies the City's arguments pertaining to the CBA's `recognition clause'..." The First District agreed stating: SERB was created to administer and enforce R.C. Chapter Thus, courts must defer to SERB's interpretation of R.C (A). SERB'[s interpretation of R.C (A) has already been noted. And a clause that simply recites which police positions are a part of the bargaining unit is not a matter that pertains to "wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment." Taking the City's argument to its extreme would mean that the Union and the City would be required to bargain over each and every clause in the entire CBA, and make the above-quoted language superfluous. We agree with SERB that the recognition clause, which defines the composition of the bargaining unit, is not a mandatory subject of bargaining.9 The goal of R.C is to promote "orderly and constructive relationships." In Ohio Council 8 this Court stated, "We continue to encourage the cooperative 8 SERB Order, p Cincinnati v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 2009-Ohio-2834, p.5. (citation omitted) 7
9 resolution of disputes, including those regarding the composition of bargaining units."io Certainly, pursuing changes to bargaining unit composition to impasse proceedings despite multiple objections by the FOP is not a "cooperative resolution." At fact-finding, the City proposed not only the removal of the newly appointed Issue 5 Assistant Chiefs, but also the grandfathered Assistant Chiefs. The FOP objected to pursuing bargaining unit composition to fact-finding and conciliation. By objecting to pursuing the issue to impasse, the FOP made clear that removing the Assistant Chiefs from the bargaining unit was a unilateral proposition by the City, not a "joint petition." Had the fact-finder or conciliator adopted the City's proposal to remove the Assistant Chiefs, it would have been over the objection of the FOP and clearly a unilateral attack on the bargaining unit strictly prohibited by Ohio Supreme Court precedent.>> If SERB is without jurisdiction to consider a unilateral petition from an employer, certainly a fact finder and/or conciliator lacks jurisdiction as well. The City also argues that SERB improperly relied upon federal law in making its determination that the City committed an unfair labor practice. This argument was not raised in the court below. Thus, the City waived its right to make this argument. Nevertheless, the City overstates SERB's use of federal law. The citations to federal law were limited to SERB's response to the City's argument that bargaining unit make-up became a mandatory subject of bargaining because the Recognition Clause lists the positions covered under the Labor Agreement. SERB disagreed with the City's position and stated: [t]he mere recitation in a recognition clause of the positions contained in a bargaining unit, whether deemed certified or Board certified, does not, 10 Id. t 1 See Ohio Council 8, supra; Brecksville, supra. 8
10 without more, make the composition of the bargaining unit a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Cases decided under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") are persuasive in this regard.ia SERB did not summarily rely upon inapposite federal cases as alleged by the City.13 SERB was interpreting Chapter 4117 and looking to federal law as "persuasive" authority on one issue. This Court has recognized that SERB was created to specifically to interpret Chapter "It was clearly the intention of the General Assembly to vest SERB with broad authority to administer and enforce R.C. Chapter This authority must necessarily include the power to interpret the Act to achieve its purposes." a Several years later, this Court reiterated its position stating: In assessing SERB's policy, this court must afford deference to SERB's interpretation of R.C. Chapter The General Assembly has entrusted SERB with the responsibility of administering the statute, and has bestowed upon it the special function of applying the statute's provisions to the complexities of Ohio's industrial life. In so doing, it has delegated to SERB the authority to make certain policy decisions. Our review is limited to whether SERB's policy is unreasonable or in conflict with the explicit language of R.C. Chapter 4117.is Additionally, this Court has held that merely listing a subject in a collective bargaining agreement does not make it a matter covered by the agreement for purposes of R.C Given the fact that the FOP represents two units with similar, but different labor agreements, the Recognition Clause in the agreements merely lists the members covered by that agreement to easily identify which agreement applies. The agreements do not contain any specific language detailing unit composition. The City and the FOP have not bargained over bargaining unit composition, therefore it is not a 12 SERB Order p Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, p Lorain City Bd ofedn. v. SERB (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 257, State Emp. Relations Bd v. Miami Univ. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 351, 353 (citations omitted). 16 See State ex rel. Bardo v. Lyndhurst ( 1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 106,113. 9
11 mandatory subject of bargaining. SERB properly determined that bargaining unit composition is a nofa mandatory subject of bargaining and cannot be forced to statutory impasse procedures. III. CONCLUSION The City's attempts to remove the Assistant Police Chiefs from the bargaining unit through statutory impasse procedures are contrary to the purpose of Chapter This Court, as well as SERB, has clearly established that unilateral attacks by employers on bargaining unit composition are prohibited. As stated above, taking bargaining unit composition to fact-finding and conciliation after the FOP has expressly objected is nothing more than a unilateral attack by the City. This type of conduct shakes the foundation of collective bargaining and should be prohibited. The lower courts properly determined that SERB's Order was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. This Court should decline jurisdiction. RespectfullyAubmitted, STEHF". LAZARUS ( ) COUNSEL OF RECORD KIMBERLY A. RUTOWSKI ( ) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, QUEEN CITY LODGE NO. 69, FOP Hardin, Lazarus, Lewis & Marks, LLC 915 Cincinnati Club Building, 30 Garfield Place Cincinnati, Ohio (513) (513)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby that a copy of the foregoing was served via Regular U.S. Mail on August 215`, 2009 upon the following: Anne Light Hoke, Esq. Assistant Attomey General Labor Relations Section 30 East Broad Street, 26`" Floor Columbus, Ohio Richard Ganulin, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Cincinnati Room 214, City Hall 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio KifnberYy A. Rutowski ( ) 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
URI^INAt_ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 9 --1351 CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO. CASE NO 801 Plum Street, City Hall Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Appellant, APPEAL NO. C-080819 -vs- TRIAL NO. A-0711489 STATE EMPLOYMENT
More informationFRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
[Cite as Donini v. Fraternal Order of Police, 2009-Ohio-5810.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY MARTY V. DONINI, Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 08CA3251 vs. : FRATERNAL
More informationbid JUh1 ;^ ^ -1 I GI,ERK QF COURT SUPREME COUR Ttt the ^&upreme Court of Case No Appellant,
Ttt the ^&upreme Court of bid QUEEN CITY LODGE NO. 69, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, V. Appellant, STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Case No. 2007-2269 On Appeal from the Hamilton County Court of Appeals,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THEODORE WILLIAMS, vs. Plaintiff-Appellant, METRO, a.k.a. SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (SORTA), and AMALGAMATED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO City of Cincinnati, Appellant, State Employment Relations Board, On Appeal from Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District and Queen City Lodge No. 69, Fraternal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Lucki v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-5404.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Anthony Lucki, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 11AP-43 v. : (C.C. No. 2010-06982)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY
[Cite as Portsmouth v. Fraternal Order of Police Scioto Lodge 33, 2006-Ohio-4387.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY City of Portsmouth, : Plaintiff-Appellant/ : Cross-Appellee,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION
STATE OF FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION BROWARD COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., CHARTERED BY THE FLORIDA POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., V. Charging Party, CITY OF HOLLYWOOD,
More informationFollowing is the full text and ballot language of the two (2) proposed Charter amendments: FIRST PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR THE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO, SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADAMS COUNTY COORDINATED MAIL BALLOT ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Hall v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 122 Ohio St.3d 528, 2009-Ohio-3603.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Hall v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 122 Ohio St.3d 528, 2009-Ohio-3603.] THE STATE EX REL. HALL, APPELLEE, v. STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel. Hall
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators Labor Council v. Cleveland, 113 Ohio St.3d 480, 2007-Ohio-2452.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators Labor Council v. Cleveland, 113 Ohio St.3d 480, 2007-Ohio-2452.] THE STATE EX REL. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OPERATORS LABOR COUNCIL, APPELLANT,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY
[Cite as Ross Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Roop, 2011-Ohio-1748.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY : COMMISSIONERS OF ROSS : Case No. 10CA3161 COUNTY, OHIO,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-1148 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. On Petition for Discretionary Review of the Opinion of the First
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA International Association of Firefighters : Local 1400, Chester City Firefighters, : Appellant : : No. 1404 C.D. 2009 v. : Argued: February 8, 2010 : The City
More informationThe City of Schenectady brought this CPLR article 78. proceeding to review a determination of the New York State Public
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Cleveland v. Cleveland Assoc. of Rescue Emps., 2011-Ohio-4263.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96325 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from the Public Employees Relations Commission.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DADE COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. v. : No. 11AP-1113 (C.P.C. No. 10CVH ) City of Columbus, : D E C I S I O N
[Cite as Garrett v. Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm., 2012-Ohio-3271.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Paul Garrett, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : v. : No. 11AP-1113 (C.P.C. No. 10CVH-02-2125)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI Appellee Decided: September 27, 2013 * * * * *
[Cite as Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 697 v. Toledo Area Regional Transit Auth., 2013-Ohio- 4412.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Amalgamated Transit
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2012-Ohio-3358.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97358 MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Yachanin v. Cleveland Civ. Serv. Comm., 2013-Ohio-4485.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99802 GEORGE YACHANIN vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 18, 2017 - Case No. 2017-0087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. Plaintiff-Appellee, : : On Appeal from the Hamilton County vs.
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2965 LAKE CITY FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2288, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, Appellant, v. CITY OF LAKE CITY, FLORIDA, Appellee.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 190 C.D. 2009 : Argued: September 14, 2009 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationBEFORE THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO IN RE: REQUEST TO SET DATE / FOR RECALL ELECTION OF / MAYOR CARLETON S. FINKBEINER / / / / Scott A. Ciolek (0082779) / CIOLEK & WICKLUND / 520 Madison Avenue,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS OAKLAND UNIVERSITY CHAPTER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, UNPUBLISHED February 9, 2012 Charging Party-Appellee, v No. 300680 MERC OAKLAND UNIVERSITY,
More informationJul, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. JOHN MANLEY. Case No
^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. JOHN MANLEY Case No. 13-0880 Plaintiff-Appellant, V. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, et al. Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the Summit County Court of Appeals
More informationThird District Court of Appeal
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 6, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D18-86 Lower Tribunal No. 17-29242 City of Miami, Appellant,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WAYNE COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2017 v No. 327727 MERC MICHIGAN AFSCME COUNCIL 25, AFL-CIO, LC No. 10-000060 Charging Party-Appellant. WAYNE
More informationPart I Labor Relations in Florida / The Law: Chapter 447
Florida Educational Negotiators Training May 2016 Part I Labor Relations in Florida / The Law: Chapter 447 Martin Miller Miller Consulting Group martinmiller@millerconsultinggroup.com 904-537-0267 Topics
More informationAppeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis The Honorable David Dowd. Reply Brief of Appellant
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT ED103063 ST. LOUIS POLICE LEADERSHIP ORGANIZATION Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS Respondent. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis The
More information[Cite as Upper Scioto Valley Local School Dist Bd. of Edn. v. Crowe, Ohio-1394.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY
[Cite as Upper Scioto Valley Local School Dist Bd. of Edn. v. Crowe, 2002- Ohio-1394.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE UPPER SCIOTO CASE NUMBER 6-01-06
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cincinnati, 2009-Ohio-1078.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO EX REL. RICHARD C. GILBERT and STATE OF OHIO
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Capital City Lodge No. 12, : Fraternal Order of Police, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 279 C.D. 2011 : SUBMITTED: July 29, 2011 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board,
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. Case No. 1D
Electronically Filed 10/25/2013 04:53:20 PM ET RECEIVED, 10/25/2013 16:58:34, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-1882 L.T. Case No. 1D12-2116 WALTER E. HEADLEY,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Reading City Council, : Appellant : : v. : : No. 29 C.D. 2012 City of Reading Charter Board : Argued: September 10, 2012 BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
More informationLED. AUG 2 3 Zq1Z CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CHARLES POWELL, Appellee, vs. JOHN H. RION, ESQ., et al. On Appeal from the Montgomery County Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District Court of Appeals Case No. 24756 Ohio
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as In re Antwon C., 182 Ohio App.3d 237, 2009-Ohio-2567.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN RE ANTWON C. : : : APPEAL NO. C-080847 TRIAL NO. 05-14749
More informationJ. Robert McCormack, Tampa, and Paul T. Ryder Jr., Sunrise, attorneys for Respondent.
Fax Jun 5 2018 01 :25p ~ P002/013 STATE OF FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION HOLL YWOOO FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1375, IAFF, INC., v. Charging Party, CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, Case Nos. HEARING OFFICER'S
More informationThis Understanding cannot be modified except in writing upon the mutual consent of the parties and ratification by the City Council. (MOU 9.1.
Memo to Acting City Manager August 9, 2018 Page 2 Re: Meet and Confer on Charter Amendments before the August 10 th deadline to place the Police Oversight Ballot Measure on the November 2018 ballot. Following
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1L CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
97422066 CITY OF CLEVELAND Plaintiff STATE OF OHIO Defendant 97422066 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1L CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Judge: MICHAEL J RUSSD'AHOGA COUNTY JOURNAL ENTRY 96 DISP.OTHER - FINAL 01/30/2017:
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Dillard Dept. Stores v. Ryan, 122 Ohio St.3d 241, 2009-Ohio-2683.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Dillard Dept. Stores v. Ryan, 122 Ohio St.3d 241, 2009-Ohio-2683.] THE STATE EX REL. DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, APPELLANT, v. RYAN, ADMR., APPELLEE, ET AL. [Cite as State ex rel.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as Green v. State, 2010-Ohio-4371.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO SAM GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee. APPEAL
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff/Appellant : CASE NO CVF 01712
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO S-THREE, LLC, : Plaintiff/Appellant : CASE NO. 2013 CVF 01712 vs. : Judge McBride BATAVIA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : ZONING APPEALS : DECISION/ENTRY Defendant/Appellee
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Capitol Police Lodge No. 85, : Fraternal Order of Police, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 2012 C.D. 2009 : Argued: June 21, 2010 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board,
More informationCITY OF CLEVELAND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU REGINALD E. BARNES
[Cite as Cleveland Parking Violations Bur. v. Barnes, 2010-Ohio-6164.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94502 CITY OF CLEVELAND PARKING
More information^CT CLERK OF C01.IRT J, U P P i 7 - E C U N. -..^^:^^ E'K :.; ^s:._._,; ;; ^`^ ^ "'^s,^r r;! ^,. s. u.^.^. y.^...,.^.^..^...:^,_...
^r'^^i ^^^C^.^2^^$^^ 3 c^^^^^^t,.,, IN THE SUPREME COIJRT OF OHIO CASE NO. 2014-0164 ADAM STEWART vs. Plaintiff-Appellant, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LOCKLAND LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ON APPEAL FROM THE. HAMILTON
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ETC., Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D02-3116 GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed June 27, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-2974 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationJ^^N '14 7U(lq CLERK OF COURT SUPREME 9pURT OF' ph10 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME C URT FOHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO SUPREME COURT CASE NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Appellee, vs. DOUGLASFUTRALL Appellant. SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 2008-2391 ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 08CA009388 LORAIN COUNTY
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. A 1803098 v. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants. MOTION OF STATE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 12/16/13 Certified for publication 1/3/14 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff
More informationOFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney JULIA A. MOLL Deputy City Attorney DIRECT DIAL: (415) 554-4705 E-MAIL: julia.moll@sfgov.org FROM: MEMORANDUM Julia A. Moll Deputy City Attorney RE: A Brief History of Elections
More information[Cite as Felice's Main Street, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 2002-Ohio-5962.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Felice's Main Street, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 2002-Ohio-5962.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Felice's Main Street, Inc., : Appellant-Appellee, : v. : Ohio
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 11/23/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CITY OF PALO ALTO, Petitioner, H041407 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. SF-CE-869-M)
More informationTHE CITY OF CLEVELAND, APPELLEE,
[Cite as Cleveland v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 232, 2014-Ohio-86.] THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, APPELLEE, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT. [Cite as Cleveland v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 232, 2014-Ohio-86.] The General
More informationALASKA LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY 3301 EAGLE STREET, SUITE 208 P.O. BOX ANCHORAGE, ALASKA (907) FAX (907)
MATANUSKA-SUSITNA ) EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ) NEA-ALASKA, ) Complainant, ) ) vs. ) ) MATANUSKA-SUSITNA ) BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) ) Respondent. ) ) Case No. 02-1148-ULP ALASKA LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY 3301
More informationSTATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS In the Matter of TOWN OF NEWINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION - and - LOCAL 1303 OF COUNCIL #4, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
More informationMunicipal Township Initiative and Referendum
Chapter 6 Municipal and Township Initiative and Referendum Ohio Ballot Questions and Issues Handbook Chapter 6: Municipal and Township Initiative and Referendum DEFINITIONS As used in this chapter, the
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 08, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 08, 2015 - Case No. 2014-0485 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO SRMOF 2009-1 Trust, : : Case No. 2014-0485 Plaintiff-Appellee, : : On Appeal from the Butler
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. County of Lehigh, : Appellant : : v. : : Lehigh County Deputy : No C.D Sheriffs' Association :
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA County of Lehigh, : Appellant : : v. : : Lehigh County Deputy : No. 1054 C.D. 2011 Sheriffs' Association : O R D E R AND NOW, this 16 th day of July, 2012, it
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Brookdale Senior Living v. Johnson-Wylie, 2011-Ohio-1243.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95129 BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
More informationIn The SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
ORIG1NAx: State of Ohio, ex rel., Columbus Southern Power Company, Relator, In The SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 10-1155 Original Action in Prohibition V. Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. John A. Bessey, Judge,
More informationBEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between WINNEBAGO COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 1903, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and WINNEBAGO COUNTY Case 311 No. 57139 Appearances:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY
[Cite as Educational Serv. Institute, Inc. v. Gallia-Vinton Educational Serv. Ctr., 2004-Ohio-874.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY Educational Services : Institute,
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Huffman v. Cleveland, Parking Violations Bur., 2016-Ohio-496.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 103447 FORDHAM E. HUFFMAN vs.
More informationAMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT BOB WHITE, SHERIFF OF PASCO COUNTY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BOB WHITE, SHERIFF OF PASCO COUNTY, Appellant, Case No.: SC11-445 vs. L.T. No.: 1D09-3106 (First DCA) FLORIDA STATE LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, INC., Appellee. / ON
More information2017 IL App (1st) No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2017 IL App (1st) 162251 THIRD DIVISION September 29, 2017 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT VILLAGE OF NORTH RIVERSIDE, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellant,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO DANIEL LOHMANN, TAMIEKA GRAY, and MARQUITTA HUNTLEY-PHOENIX, vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, CITY OF CINCINNNATI, and CIVIL SERVICE
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: July 2, 2009 506301 In the Matter of the Arbitration between MASSENA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO State Employment Relations Board. Conciliation Guidebook
STATE OF OHIO State Employment Relations Board Conciliation Guidebook January 2019 Table of Contents CONCILIATION GUIDEBOOK... 4 Purpose... 4 Conciliation Process... 4 Conciliation Eligibility... 4 Conciliation
More informationCITY OF CLEVELAND JEFFREY POSNER
[Cite as Cleveland v. Posner, 2010-Ohio-3091.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93893 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: December 27, 2012 514855 In the Matter of CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, v OPINION AND ORDER NEW
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION S COMPLAINT FOR
Gregg McLean Adam, No. gregg@majlabor.com MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP Montgomery Street, Suite San Francisco, California Telephone:..00 Facsimile:.. Attorneys for San Francisco Police Officers Association
More information^^ JUNI CI.kRK OF COURT SUpRRME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. IN THE MATTER OF: A.R.R., Case No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE MATTER OF: A.R.R., Case No. ^^-10..7 On Appeal from the Ross County Court of Appeals Fourth Appellate District C.A. Case No. IOCA3159 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. This is a death penalty case.
^^ ^^^^f^^^. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MELVIN BONNELL, Defendant-Appellant. Case No. 2011-2164 On Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District,
More informationBY-LAWS OF FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE Jerrard F. Young Lodge D.C. #1 Updated 7 July 2005
BY-LAWS OF FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE Jerrard F. Young Lodge D.C. #1 Updated 7 July 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1; NAME, AFFILIATION, JURISDICTION, OBJECTIVES
More information[Cite as Middleburg Hts. v. Quinones, 120 Ohio St.3d 534, 2008-Ohio-6811.]
[Cite as Middleburg Hts. v. Quinones, 120 Ohio St.3d 534, 2008-Ohio-6811.] CITY OF MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS, APPELLANT, v. QUINONES, APPELLEE. [Cite as Middleburg Hts. v. Quinones, 120 Ohio St.3d 534, 2008-Ohio-6811.]
More informationILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Village of Oak Lawn v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 2011 IL App (1st) 103417 Appellate Court Caption THE VILLAGE OF OAK LAWN, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS
More informationBEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between WISCONSIN INDIANHEAD TECHNICAL COLLEGE EDUCATION SUPPORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 4019,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allegheny County Deputy Sheriffs : Association, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 959 C.D. 2009 : Argued: April 17, 2013 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, : Respondent
More informationRussia s Supreme Court Discusses Key Arbitration-Related Cases
Russia s Supreme Court Discusses Key Arbitration-Related Cases January 17, 2019 On 26 December 2018, the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court (the Supreme Court ) has approved a review of jurisprudence
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Pryor v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2015-Ohio-1255.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) MARCUS PRYOR, II C.A. No. 27225 Appellant
More informationAUQ 2 0 2oo9 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Appellee. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO No and No GEORGE SULLIVAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO No. 2008-0691 and No. 2008-0817 GEORGE SULLIVAN Appellee V. ANDERSON TOWNSHIP, et al. On Appeal from the Haniilton County Court of Appeals First Appellate District Court of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Serv. Emp. Internatl. Union Dist. 1199 v. Ohio Elections Comm., 158 Ohio App.3d 769, 2004-Ohio- 5662.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Service Employees International
More informationCHARTER OF THE CITY OF MT. HEALTHY, OHIO ARTICLE I INCORPORATION, POWERS, AND FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Page 1 of 17 CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MT. HEALTHY, OHIO PREAMBLE We, the people of the City of Mt. Healthy, in order to fully secure and exercise the benefits of self-government under the Constitution and
More informationFebruary 12, 2013 SYLLABUS:
February 12, 2013 Beverly L. Cain, State Librarian State Library of Ohio 274 East First Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 SYLLABUS: 2013-004 1. A member of a board of library trustees of a municipal free public
More informationAppellee Opinion No OPINION
HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Appellant HARFORD COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COUNCIL, BEFORE THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellee Opinion No. 05-24 OPINION The Harford County Board of Education
More informationReports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of York, : Appellant : : v. : : White Rose Lodge No. 15, : 1945 C.D. 2006 Fraternal Order of Police : Argued: September 5, 2007 BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER
More informationIFE'd CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. CLERX OF COURT SUPREML GOUR f OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
..-^.....^.t.... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CITY OF MUNROE FALLS vs. Plaintiff/Appellant, STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, et al. Defendants/Appellees CASE NO: ^ k APPEAL FROM THE SUMMIT COUNTY COURT
More informationAMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION LABOR ARBITRATION FORUM
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION LABOR ARBITRATION FORUM In the Matter of: ASSOCIATION, ) ) Grievance: Post Vacancy Position Association, ) ) AAA Case No and ) ) Gr No DISTRICT, ) ) Arbitrator Lee Hornberger
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Page, 2011-Ohio-83.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94369 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIE PAGE, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Pasqua, 2004-Ohio-2992.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. VINCENT PASQUA, APPELLANT. * : : : : : APPEAL NO.
More informationCase 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-02577 Document 1 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
More informationBoard Meeting Minutes April 28, 2011
The State Employment Relations Board met on, at 10:00 a.m., at 65 East State Street, 12 1 h Floor, Columbus, Ohio. Present at the meeting were Chair W. Craig Zimpher, Vice Chair Robert F. Spada, and Board
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Gruszka, 2009-Ohio-3926.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO Appellant C.A. No. 08CA009515 v. GREGORY GRUSZKA Appellee
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487, Ohio-4077.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487, 2014- Ohio-4077.] THE STATE EX REL. EBERSOLE ET AL., v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. [Cite as State ex
More information. I..i'ML OCT IZ CLERK OF GOURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant
. I..i'ML IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2012 STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 12-1643 Plaintiff-Appellee, -vs- SHAUGHN C. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate
More informationJUN CLtitl4i)r :'OURI SUPREIViE i;ourl Jf JHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EX REL. DANIEL J. WILLIAMS Appellant On Appeal From the Hamilton County Court of Appeals, First Appellate District Court of Appeals Case No. C-1100 179 vs. HON.
More information