Availability of Collective-Bargaining Grievance Procedures as an Adequate Remedy Bars Mandamus Relief

Introduction

In State ex rel. Johnston v. North Olmsted City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1233 (Apr. 10, 2025), the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether a public-school teacher, who allegedly was placed on a salary schedule below her statutory credit for experience, could bypass a collective-bargaining grievance procedure and seek a writ of mandamus for backpay. Appellant Emily Johnston claimed she had been wrongfully placed on a salary schedule reflecting only six years of teaching experience—rather than ten years—despite her master’s degree and full decade of service. After teaching under the reduced salary for five years without invoking the agreement’s grievance mechanism, she sued for mandamus, seeking the difference in pay. The Eighth District Court of Appeals granted the School Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Johnston had an adequate remedy in the grievance procedure embedded in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Ohio held, by a per curiam opinion, that:

Johnston’s dispute over placement on the salary schedule arose under the collective-bargaining agreement that expressly provided a multi-step grievance procedure culminating in binding arbitration.
Because Johnston was subject to that agreement from her first paycheck onward, she had an available remedy in the ordinary course of law: the contractual grievance process.
Her failure to file a grievance within the time limits (25 days from the alleged underpayment) rendered mandamus inappropriate, as mandamus lies only when no adequate remedy exists at law.
The fact that the grievance mechanism might afford only prospective relief did not render it inadequate, since timely use could have secured both proper salary placement and prospective adjustments for all future pay periods.
Consequently, the writ of mandamus was properly denied and the appellate decision was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court’s decision drew upon a line of Ohio cases establishing that mandamus is unavailable where an adequate statutory or contractual grievance procedure exists:

State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Berea, 7 Ohio St.2d 85 (1966): Mandamus lies only when there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
State ex rel. Consolidated Coal Co. v. Industrial Commn., 18 Ohio St.3d 281 (1985): A relator cannot invoke mandamus when he has a plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law.
State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 193 (1994): Teachers subject to a collective-bargaining agreement must use its grievance procedure before seeking mandamus; those outside the bargaining unit may sue directly.
State ex rel. Tapo v. Columbus Bd. of Edn., 31 Ohio St.3d 105 (1987): Mandamus may be appropriate where the only dispute is over backpay and no contractual grievance procedure applies or is disputed.
State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland Hts./Univ. Hts. School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 73 Ohio St.3d 41 (1995): A grievance procedure covering salary placement disputes bars mandamus when timely used.
State ex rel. Lockard v. Wellston City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 4th Dist. No. 13CA22, 2015-Ohio-2186: Failure to use a grievance mechanism constituted lack of an adequate remedy at law, barring mandamus.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court employed the traditional three-prong test for mandamus relief:

Clear legal right to relief: Johnston must show she was entitled to a salary based on ten years of experience under either statute (R.C. 3317.13, 3317.14) or contract.
Clear legal duty: The Board must have an unconditional duty to place her on the ten-year step and pay back the difference.
No adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law: If a grievance procedure exists that can redress the wrong, mandamus is foreclosed.

The critical inquiry was the third prong. The collective-bargaining agreement expressly provided that salary disputes “shall be placed . . . in the highest class for which [the teacher is] qualified” and set forth a detailed multi-tier grievance mechanism ending in binding arbitration. Under Chavis and subsequent cases, that constitutes an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Johnston argued that the grievance procedure could not award past backpay and thus was incomplete. The Court rejected that argument, noting that a timely grievance—filed within 25 days of her first underpaid paycheck—could have secured placement at the correct step going forward, thereby capturing both the remedy for past pay periods (by retroactive adjustment of future checks) and all future pay. Her voluntary failure to commence a grievance did not render the procedure inadequate.

Johnston’s alternative contention—that her rights were purely statutory under R.C. 3317.13 and 3317.14 and thus not governed by contract—was likewise rebuffed. The Board’s salary schedule was adopted pursuant to R.C. 3317.14 and incorporated into the collective-bargaining agreement; the agreement explicitly addressed salary placement criteria and thus “specified” the matter within the meaning of R.C. 4117.10(A).

3. Impact

This decision reinforces the principle that public employees subject to a collective-bargaining agreement must exhaust or at least timely pursue the grievance procedures contained therein before resorting to a mandamus action. It clarifies:

Mandamus remains an extraordinary remedy reserved for situations where no alternative adequate remedy exists at law.
Grievance procedures offering prospective relief can be “adequate” to address both past and future salary disputes if timely invoked.
A collective-bargaining agreement need not explicitly mention “backpay” to qualify as an adequate contractual forum for salary-placement disputes.
Statutory salary schedules adopted under R.C. 3317.14 and integrated into a bargaining agreement become subject to the agreement’s grievance machinery.

Future litigants will find it harder to circumvent grievance processes by invoking mandamus, and boards of education may take comfort that agreed grievance steps will disfavour premature court intervention.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: An extraordinary court order directing a public official to perform a clear legal duty. It is available only when no adequate legal remedy exists.
Adequate Remedy in the Ordinary Course of Law: A remedy that is complete (can fully redress the wrong), speedy, and beneficial, such as an administrative appeal or grievance procedure.
Collective-Bargaining Agreement (CBA): A contract between a public-sector employer and a union (or its members) governing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.
Grievance Procedure: A multi-step process laid out in a CBA for resolving disputes over contract interpretation or application, often culminating in binding arbitration.
Salary Schedule Placement: The step on a pay grid where a teacher’s salary is calculated, determined by factors like educational credits and years of teaching experience.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Johnston v. North Olmsted City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. reaffirmed that where a collective-bargaining agreement offers a clear, binding grievance procedure for salary disputes, mandamus will not lie. The decision underscores the importance of timely engagement with contractual grievance steps, holding that even a remedy providing only prospective relief can be adequate if invoked within the prescribed period. Public employees and their unions must ensure that contractual forums are properly utilized before seeking judicial intervention.