Common Pleas Court Able To Hear Union’s Arbitration Application To Save City Worker’s Job

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today a common pleas court could order the city of Lakewood to arbitrate a claim that it wrongfully fired an allegedly insubordinate employee.

Lakewood argued that only the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) could decide whether Lakewood was required to arbitrate the November 2021 termination of Michael Satink, a member of the city’s employee union. When the city refused to resolve Satink’s termination through binding arbitration, the union sought and received a court order to send the dispute to arbitration.

In a 2-1 decision, the Eighth District Court of Appeals agreed with Lakewood and reversed the trial court’s order. The Supreme Court overturned the Eighth District’s decision.

Writing for the Court, Justice Patrick F. Fischer explained that SERB only has exclusive jurisdiction over labor disputes when one of the parties alleges an unfair labor practice or conduct that constitutes an unfair labor practice. Justice Fischer noted the union was not alleging that Lakewood committed an unfair labor practice, but rather was disputing whether in this specific case the city was not following the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

He wrote that R.C. 4117.09(B)(1) expressly states a party to a collective bargaining agreement can bring lawsuits in common pleas court for violation of the arbitration agreement.

“And that is what happened in this case. Accordingly, jurisdiction was properly exercised by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,” he stated.

Union Challenges Employee’s Firing
Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and Local 1043, AFSCME, AFL-CIO is the union representing Lakewood city employees. Satink worked for the Department of Public Works and was a union member.

The city and the union had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which included a grievance procedure. The CBA stated the grievance procedure is the “exclusive method of reviewing and settling disputes” between the city and the union or union employees. If a grievance goes to arbitration, the CBA states the decisions of the arbitrators are “conclusive and binding.”

In November 2020, the city terminated Satink, claiming he committed “insubordinate, inappropriate, and intimidating acts in the workplace.” The union filed a grievance challenging Satink’s dismissal. The parties could not resolve the dispute, and a date was set for an arbitration hearing .

Before the hearing date, the parties reached a compromise. They drafted a “last-chance agreement,” which reinstated Satink. The agreement stated that if Satink violated any work rule or policy “pertaining to professional, respectful, and workplace appropriate behavior,” he would be subject to immediate termination. The agreement stated his termination would not be subject to the CBA’s grievance or arbitration provisions.

One year later, the city again fired Satink, finding he engaged in workplace misconduct.

Union Files Lawsuit To Compel Arbitration
The union filed a grievance challenging Satink’s second termination. The city pointed to the wording of the last-chance agreement and responded that it had no obligation to follow the grievance process in the CBA or submit the dispute to arbitration.

The union informed the city that it had to follow the grievance process, and based on Lakewood’s refusal, the union filed a lawsuit in common pleas court. Citing R.C. 2711.03, it asked the court to require Lakewood to arbitrate Satink’s second termination. The city asked the trial court to dismiss the case, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Lakewood argued the union’s claims relate to rights created under the state’s collective bargaining laws and that SERB had exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether Lakewood was required to arbitrate Satink’s termination.

The judge granted the union’s request to send the matter to arbitration.

Lakewood appealed to the Eighth District, which reversed the trial court’s decision. The city raised two legal arguments, including that the common pleas court did not have jurisdiction to consider the union’s lawsuit. In a split decision, the Eighth District ruled in favor of Lakewood without deciding its second legal argument.

The union appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court Analyzed State Labor Law
Citing the Supreme Court’s 2003 State ex rel. Dept. of Mental Health v. Nadel decision, Justice Fischer explained that SERB has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any claim where one of the parties alleges an unfair labor practice under R.C. 4117.11 or conduct that constitutes an unfair labor practice enumerated in R.C. 4117.11.

The opinion noted that the union was not alleging the city engaged in an unfair labor practice, so SERB did not have jurisdiction over the case. The city argued the union’s demand for arbitration arose from and depended on the rights created in R.C. Chapter 4117 granting collective bargaining rights. The city pointed to R.C. 4117.09(B)(1), which provides that a CBA grievance process “may culminate with” binding arbitration. The city also noted that R.C. 4117.10(A) states that if a CBA provides for arbitration, the parties are subject “solely to that grievance procedure.” Because R.C. Chapter 4117 creates the right to resolve grievances through arbitration, the dispute about using the arbitration process is a matter to be decided by SERB, the city argued.

The Court agreed with the union that the right to arbitration was established by adopting the CBA. Regardless of whether provisions in R.C. Chapter 4117 state that union contracts can have arbitration procedures, the law does not require the procedure and the right to agree to an arbitration provision exists independently of the law, the Court stated. The CBA established the right to arbitration, the opinion stated, not the law.

The Court also noted that the union’s request to arbitrate the matter did not claim that Lakewood was violating R.C. 4117.09(B)(1) or committing any unfair labor practice. The opinion stated the law says it is an unfair labor practice if a public employer establishes a “pattern or practice of repeated failures to timely process grievances and requests for arbitration of grievances.” The union did not make that argument and pointed only to this one instance of the city not following the process to terminate Satink.

The union’s complaint is not one that is required by law to go to SERB, and the trial court properly considered the case, the Court ruled. The case was remanded to the Eighth District to consider Lakewood’s other argument opposing the order to send the matter to arbitration.

2024-0031. Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Lakewood, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2052.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.