In the case of State ex. rel. Casey v. Brown, 2022-Ohio-2843, the Court denied a firefighter’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the city to promote him to a recently vacated position after the union rejected his grievance.
In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must demonstrate: “(1) they have a clear legal right to the relief, (2) the respondent has a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and (3) they have no adequate remedy at law.”
Here, a firefighter filed a grievance against the city in which he worked for failing to promote a vacated position after stating its intention to do so. The city was in a collective bargaining agreement with the union for which the firefighter worked, and the union rejected the grievance due to a decision in another union member’s grievance that directly interfered with the firefighter’s grievance. The Court agreed with the city.
In support of its decision, the Court reasoned that the firefighter’s claim was governed by his union’s collective bargaining agreement and its grievance and arbitration procedure, which noted its finality under R.C. 4117.10. The Court noted that grievance and arbitration procedures in a collective bargaining agreement generally provide an adequate legal remedy, and thus there is no entitlement to a writ of mandamus. The Court further found that the firefighter had an additional remedy available of filing an unfair labor practice charge against the union based on its alleged failure to fairly represent him in violation of R.C. 4117.11(B)(6).
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.