In the case of United Elec. Radio & Machine Workers of Am. v. Highland Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2018-Ohio-5307, an Ohio appellate court held that a school board may non-renew non-teaching employees with or without cause absent collective bargaining language stating otherwise.
This case involved two non-teaching employees hired on limited one-year contracts. At the end of the contracts, the school board sent notice of its intention to non-renew the limited contracts for these non-teaching employees. The union demanded arbitration of the nonrenewal action. In response, the school board refused to “consent to arbitration, asserting that the agreement of the parties does not supersede state law.” Highland Local at ¶ 3.
In this case, there is no dispute that “[t]he language in the [collective bargaining agreement] does not address the subject of limited contracts, their expiration, the authority to issue a limited contract, or the procedure for the nonrenewal of limited contracts of non-teaching employees.” Highland Local at ¶ 29.
Nonetheless, the union argued that the collective bargaining agreement supersedes R.C. 3319.081 and, therefore, the school board must have “just cause” for not re-employing non-teaching employees. Highland Local at ¶ 7. In response, the school board argued that R.C. 3319.081 “permits an employer to choose to not renew a non-teaching employee at the expiration of the [sic] [limited contract] without just cause.” Highland Local at ¶ 8. See, also, R.C. 3319.083 entitled, “Notice of intention not to re-employ.” The appellate court agreed with the school board.
In agreeing with the school board, the appellate court explained that:
If we were to adopt appellant’s argument, all non-teaching employees, including new employees, would have continuing contracts. There is no provision in the [collective bargaining agreement] stating that a continuing contract for a nonteaching employee is automatic such that the system contained in R.C. 3319.081 for limited contracts and the process by which to get a continuing contract is not applicable. There is no reference to either R.C. 3319.081 or R.C. 3319.083 in the CBA and the words “renew” and “non-renew” are not in the [collective bargaining agreement]. Given the general language used and the lack of any mention of the applicable statues, relevant terms, or any language regarding the issuance, sequence, renewal or non-renewal of limited contracts in the [collective bargaining agreement], we find there is not a clear intent evidenced by the parties in the [collective bargaining agreement] that all employees would have continuing contracts.
Highland Local at ¶ 29.
This case highlights – yet again – the fact that words matter when drafting collective bargaining agreements. In this case, the lack of any wording in the collective bargaining agreement supporting the union’s position led to a finding in favor of the school board.
To read this case, click here.
McGown & Markling is prepared to assist your collective bargaining needs and our very own Matthew John Markling is among the less than one percent of Ohio attorneys who have earned the prestigious distinction of being renowned as an Ohio State Bar Association Certified Specialist in Labor and Employment Law. To learn more about Mr. Markling, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.