In the case State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union No. 208 v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 2021-Ohio-3318, the Tenth District Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err in denying a Union’s petition for writ of mandamus which sought to compel a state employee relations board to investigate an unfair labor practice charge.
Here, the Union argued that the unilateral changes to health insurance benefits and premium payments constituted unfair labor practices. The Court of Appeals disagreed.
The Court held that there was no probable cause to bring this unfair labor practice charge. The Court reasoned that the Union’s collective bargaining agreement explicitly provides that the employer may change insurance carriers or methods of providing insurance. As such, the Court found that denial of the writ of mandamus was proper.
To read this case, 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.