DocketNumber: No. 15567.
Citation Numbers: 613 N.E.2d 1093, 83 Ohio App. 3d 68
Judges: CACIOPPO, Presiding Judge.
Filed Date: 12/2/1992
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 70 On August 9, 1990, appellant, Handson Fields, was hired as a custodial worker at the Summit County Jail. On August 31, 1990, Fields's supervisor received reports that Fields had driven a county vehicle to a suspected crack house and that he was using drugs or smuggling drugs into the jail or both. The supervisor discussed the reports with Fields and then sent him home. Fields was instructed to report to the personnel office on September 4, 1990, for a predisciplinary hearing, but no hearing was held.
On September 5, 1990, Fields received a letter from Summit County. The letter stated that Fields was terminated immediately. On September 14, Fields received a removal order from the county. Fields appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board of Review ("state board").
On April 12, 1991, an administrative law judge issued her report and recommendation. The administrative law judge concluded that the state board did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because Fields's position was covered by a collective bargaining agreement and the agreement preempted the statutory appeal process. The state board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the appeal. Fields appealed this decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County. The court affirmed the decision of the state board. Fields appeals from the judgment of the trial court, asserting three assignments of error. We affirm.
Appellant asserts in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred by finding that the state board did not have jurisdiction over Fields's appeal to the state board. We do not agree.
R.C.
R.C.
The trial court held that these general procedures were not applicable to Fields because they were superseded by the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to R.C.
"(A) An agreement between a public employer and an exclusive representative entered into pursuant to Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code governs the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of public employment covered by the agreement. If the agreement provides for a final and binding arbitration of grievances, public employers, employees, and employee organizations are subject solely to that grievance procedure and the state personnel board of review or civil service commissions have no jurisdiction to receive and determine any appeals relating to matters that were the subject of a final and binding grievance procedure. Where no agreement exists or where an agreement makes no specification about a matter, the public employer and public employees are subject to all applicable *Page 72 state or local laws or ordinances pertaining to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for public employees. * * *"
The provisions of a collective bargaining agreement entered into pursuant to R.C. Chapter 4117 prevail over conflicting laws. Cincinnati v. Ohio Council 8, Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. Mun. Emp., AFL-CIO (1991),
Fields contends that this provision is not applicable in the present case because the agreement does not provide for "a final and binding arbitration of grievances" as required by R.C.
The agreement provides that each new employee shall be required to complete a one-hundred-twenty-day probationary period. Section 18.1, Article 18. This provision also states that a probationary employee may be terminated at any time during the probationary period and shall have no right to appeal the termination. Id.
The agreement also has a grievance procedure in place. This procedure provides for resolution of any grievance. "Grievance" is defined by the agreement as "any dispute or difference between the employer and an employee concerning interpretation and/or application of, or compliance with, any provision of this Agreement." Section 21.2, Article 21. A four-step grievance procedure is outlined by the agreement. Section 21.8, Article 21. In the event that the grievance is not satisfactorily resolved by the grievance procedure, the grievance may be submitted to a review committee for a final and binding decision. Section 22.6, Article 22.
The trial court found that this procedure satisfied the requirements of R.C.
The first assignment of error is not well taken.
Appellant asserts in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred by finding that the agreement prohibits a probationary employee from pursuing an appeal to the state board. We do not agree.
Section 18.1, Article 18 clearly states that "[a] new hire probationary employee may be terminated at any time during [the] probationary period and shall have no right to appeal the termination." The agreement also provides for final and binding internal review of a grievance. Section 22.6, Article 22. Reading these provisions together indicates that the agreement provides for a final internal review with no right to appeal to the state board. This is a proper subject for a collective bargaining agreement, where the statutory right to appeal may be either retained or bargained away by the parties. See In reLemley-Wingo (Aug. 22, 1990), Ross App. No. 1622, unreported, at 10, 1990 WL 127040; Bashford v. Portsmouth (1990),
Appellant asserts in his final assignment of error that the trial court erred by failing to find that he was denied due process because he was not granted a pretermination hearing. We do not agree.
Appellant asserts that he has a property right in his employment such that he should have received a hearing prior to his termination. The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests protected by the
In the case at bar, the agreement contains no provision or understanding which would indicate that Fields had any property interest in his position. To the contrary, the agreement indicates that as a probationary employee, Fields could be terminated at any time during his probationary period. Section 18.1, Article 18. Fields had no interest at stake in his employment that required procedural protection. The Ohio Supreme Court has reached the same result in a number of cases. See,e.g., Walton v. Montgomery Cty. Welfare Dept. (1982),
The trial court did not err by finding that Fields was not denied due process. The third assignment of error is not well taken.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
REECE and COOK, JJ., concur. *Page 75