“Beyond Unfair-Labor-Practice Allegations”
Clarifying the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) Over Public-Sector Labor Disputes

Introduction

On 12 June 2025 the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its slip opinion in Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of Lakewood, 2025-Ohio-2052. Although the factual dispute arose from the City’s refusal to arbitrate a single employee’s grievance, the Court seized the occasion to settle a recurring, often confusing, jurisdictional question: When does the State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”) possess exclusive authority, and when may a common pleas court entertain a union’s contractual claim under a collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”)?

The answer, distilled by Justice Fischer writing for a unanimous court, is deceptively simple: SERB’s exclusivity is triggered only if one party actually alleges an unfair labor practice (“ULP”) listed in R.C. 4117.11, either by filing charges with SERB or by pleading the same conduct in a court complaint. Any dispute that does not rest on a statutory ULP—but instead on independent contractual rights—may proceed in common pleas court, notwithstanding Chapter 4117’s broad policies.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court reversed the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which had dismissed the union’s motion to compel arbitration for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Reaffirming State ex rel. Dept. of Mental Health v. Nadel, the Court held that the jurisdictional “test” focuses exclusively on whether a ULP under R.C. 4117.11 has been alleged.
• Because AFSCME did not allege any ULP—its complaint merely sought to enforce the CBA’s arbitration clause—SERB lacked exclusive jurisdiction and the common pleas court properly compelled arbitration.
• The case was remanded to the Eighth District to address an assignment of error it previously found moot.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State ex rel. Dept. of Mental Health v. Nadel, 2003-Ohio-1632
   • Introduced the two-part exclusivity test (SERB filing or court pleading of ULP). • In the present judgment the Court declares that Nadel “has always been, and remains” the governing standard.
2. State ex rel. Cleveland v. Sutula, 2010-Ohio-5039
   • Earlier language suggested that even “contract-based” claims could fall within SERB’s purview if they “arise from” Chapter 4117 rights. • The Court now clarifies that any such dictum is subordinate to Nadel; to the extent Sutula sowed confusion, it is constrained.
3. In re Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trustees, SERB No. 2009-001
   • SERB found a ULP where a township refused to process multiple grievances—establishing a “pattern or practice” under R.C. 4117.11(A)(6). • The Court distinguishes the present single grievance, emphasizing that one isolated refusal is not a statutory ULP.
4. Statutory Authorities • R.C. 4117.09(B)(1) – Allows parties to “bring suits for violation of agreements … in the court of common pleas.” • R.C. 4117.10(A) – Mandates adherence to grievance procedures but does not divest courts of power to enforce them. • R.C. 2711.03 – Ohio’s arbitration enforcement mechanism, used by the union.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds in three logical steps:

1. Define the Jurisdictional Trigger. Only a pleaded or filed ULP under R.C. 4117.11 activates SERB’s exclusivity. The statutory list is exhaustive.
2. Characterize the Union’s Claim. AFSCME’s complaint alleged non-performance of a contractual arbitration clause—not interference with collective-bargaining rights, refusal to bargain, or any “pattern or practice” of grievance obstruction.
3. Apply R.C. 4117.09(B)(1). That subsection expressly authorizes common pleas suits “for violation of agreements,” including enforcement of arbitration provisions; thus, the common pleas court’s role is not only permissible but contemplated by statute.

3. Potential Impact on Future Litigation and Labor Relations

• Predictability. Parties can now readily determine forum selection by asking a single question: “Is a statutory ULP alleged?”
• Larger Role for Common Pleas Courts. Enforcement of public-sector CBAs—especially single-incident arbitration disputes—will gravitate toward the judiciary rather than SERB.
• SERB Workload and Focus. SERB’s docket should narrow to genuine ULP and representation matters, enhancing administrative efficiency.
• Collective Bargaining Strategy. Unions may feel empowered to bypass administrative delay and obtain swift judicial orders compelling arbitration; employers must be prepared to defend contract-based actions in court.
• Doctrinal Clarity. The Court’s explicit disavowal of vague “arise from or depend on” language refines Ohio labor jurisprudence and reduces forum-shopping litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

State Employment Relations Board (SERB)

An administrative agency that adjudicates unfair labor practice charges and oversees union representation issues for Ohio public employees.

Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)

Specific employer or union conduct enumerated in R.C. 4117.11—for example, refusing to bargain in good faith or establishing a pattern of grievance obstruction.

Exclusive Jurisdiction

The legal principle that only one tribunal (here, SERB) can decide certain disputes, barring courts from intervening.

Grievance Procedure

A step-by-step method, mandated by R.C. 4117.09(B), for resolving workplace disputes; may culminate in binding arbitration.

Motion to Compel Arbitration (R.C. 2711.03)

A statutory request asking a court to order a reluctant party to proceed with arbitration as promised in a contract.

Conclusion

Ohio Council 8 v. Lakewood enshrines a bright-line rule: Unless a statutory unfair labor practice under R.C. 4117.11 is alleged, SERB’s exclusivity does not attach, and common pleas courts retain jurisdiction over contractual enforcement of CBAs. By reaffirming Nadel and cabining expansive dicta from subsequent cases, the Court provides welcome clarity to public-sector employers, unions, and practitioners alike. Contractual grievance-arbitration disputes—particularly single-incident refusals—belong in court, not before the administrative agency. As Ohio’s public-sector labor relations evolve, this precedent will guide parties in selecting the correct forum, streamline litigation costs, and strengthen the enforceability of collective-bargaining agreements statewide.