1h Chair Robert F. Spada, and Board Member N. … · Chair Robert F. Spada, ... June 21, 2012 Page 2 of 21 ... The final contract was filed with our office on February 1, 2012

State Employment Relations Board

Board Meeting Minutes June 21, 2012

The State Employment Relations Board met on June 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., at 65 East State Street, 121

h Floor, Columbus, Ohio. Present at the meeting were Chair W. Craig Zimpher, Vice Chair Robert F. Spada, and Board Member N. Eugene Brundige.

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MAY 31, 2012 BOARD MEETING:

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board approve the minutes for the May 31, 2012 Board meeting. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: Yes Affirmed X Denied

II. MEDIATION AND FACT-FINDING MATTERS AT ISSUE:

1. Case 2012-MED-04-0508 City of St. Bernard and St. Bernard Fire Fighters. IAFF Local 450

On April 27, 2012 St. Bernard Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 450 ("Employee Organization") filed with SERB a Notice to Negotiate concerning negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement involving the City of St. Bernard ("the Employer").

On May 17, 2012, the Village of St. Bernard ("Employer") filed a Motion To Dismiss the Notice to Negotiate. St. Bernard was formerly a City having a population of more than 5, 000. Based upon the most current federal decennial census the City of St. Bernard has a total population of 4, 368 which is also confirmed by the Secretary of State. The City of St. Bernard is no longer a public employer under 4117.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss the Notice to Negotiate. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


2. Case 2012-MED-04-0477 City of Cleveland and Association of Cleveland Firefighters. IAFF Local 93

In this matter, the Union filed a Notice to Negotiate on Apri119, 2012. In Response, the employer filed a Motion to Strike the Union's Notice to Negotiate or In the Alternative, Motion to Defer to Arbitration. This was followed by Local 93's brief in opposition to the City's motion. The City further answered with a Brief in reply to Local 93's Brief in Opposition which was followed by Local 93's response and a request to file it instanter.

At issue is the following portion of Article 27 of their labor agreement: "The city reserves the right to staff fire - medic transport units with less than four(4) employees only as part of an integration of the Divisions of Fire and EMS. Prior to implementing an integration plan deploying such units, the city will negotiate with the union regarding the decision and its effects."

The above language is part of a labor agreement that expires March 31, 2013. On March 1, 2012, the City notified the Union it was prepared to commence negotiations over the integration plan.

State Employment Relations Board Board Meeting Minutes

June 21, 2012 Page 2 of 21

Local 93 submits the above negotiations should be subject to the dispute resolution process of RC 4117.14. The employer argues is not a reopener, subject to Revised Code 4117, but rather an agreement to discuss the merger of the Fire and EMS operations and is not a modification of a labor agreement or a new provision of the labor agreement.

The union has also filed a grievance regarding the above issue. That grievance procedure culminates in arbitration. The center of this dispute revolves around the interpretation of a contract clause, in other words, whether the city has complied with the provisions of the contract. Here the employer agreed to bargain the effect of its management decision. The bargaining is not pursuant to a reopener or a termination clause and does not contemplate termination, modification, extension or duration of a labor agreement. Given that this matter has been submitted through the grievance procedure which culminates in arbitration, an arbitrator is capable of determining whether or not the city has complied with the provisions of the labor agreement.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board defer this matter to Arbitration pursuant to In re Upper Arlington Ed Assn, SERB 92-010 (6-30-92). Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER Yes Affirmed X Denied

3. Case 201 0-MED-07 -0882 City of Lebanon and Lebanon Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 4796

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board lift the matter from the table. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for the vote.


On July 14, 2010, Lebanon Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 4796 ("Employee Organization") filed a Notice to Negotiate for an initial contract.

On August 31, 2010, a Mediator was appointed. On September 23, 2010, SERB appointed Fact Finder John P Downes.

On April 7, 2011 a motion was filed by the ("Employer") to Disqualify Fact-Finder; to Stay Dispute Settlement Procedure pending Decision; and To Vacate the April12, 2011, continued hearing day. On April 18, 2011, a response was received from the ("Employee Organization"). On April 28, 2011, the Board tabled this matter. On May 19, 2011, a Conciliator was appointed.

A conciliation hearing was held and a second day was scheduled for August 29, 2011, on that day the parties reached and agreement. The final contract was filed with our office on February 1, 2012.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss the motion as moot. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: Yes Affirmed Denied


June 21, 2012 Page 3 of 21

4. Closing of 115 Cases

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board close 115 Mediation cases beginning with Case 2009-MED-07-0743 and ending with Case 2011-MED-12-1762, not consecutively numbered. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


Ill. REPRESENTATION MATTERS AT ISSUE:

1. Case 2012-REP-03-0033

2. Case 2012-REP-03-0039

Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO and Tri-County Regional Jail (July 3- July 16, 2012)

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1105 and Muskingum County Board of Commissioners (Sewer Department) (July 3- July 16, 2012)

All parties have executed and filed the appropriate Consent Election Agreements seeking mail-ballot elections.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board approve the Consent Election Agreements and direct mail-ballot elections to be conducted during the polling periods indicated. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes Affirmed X

SPADA: Yes Denied

ZIMPHER: Yes

3. Case 2012-REP-02-0023 Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSEl/AFSCME Local 4, AFL-CIO and Crooksville Exempted Village School District Board of Education

The Employee Organization filed a Request for Recognition. The Employer responded by filing a Petition for Representation Election and objections. On April 4, 2012, the Employee Organization filed a Motion for SERB to Direct a Representation Election.

On June 6, 2012, as a result of efforts by the hearing section, the parties filed a Settlement Agreement in the above-cited case and related Case No. 2012-ULP-02-oo3g. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed upon the following bargaining unit:

Included:

Excluded:


June 21, 2012 Page 4 of 21

All regular full-time and part-time cooks, custodians, mechanics, maintenance employees.

bus drivers, cooks, head secretaries, aides, and

All other employees employed by the Employer including all management employees, supervisors, and confidential employees as defined by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4117 and seasonal and casual employees as defined by SERB.

Furthermore, the parties have agreed that SERB shall conduct a mail-ballot election as soon as possible and established a voter eligibility date as of June 5, 2012. The case is ripe for an election.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board approve the settlement agreement, direct the parties to a mail-ballot election to be conducted during a polling period to be determined by the Representation Section, and dismiss the Employee Organization's motion as moot. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: Yes Affirmed

4. Case 2012-REP-05-0058

5. Case 2012-REP-05-0059

6. Case 2012-REP-06-0060

Denied

Ohio Council 8, Amercian Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. AFL-CIO and Morgan County Department of Job and Family Services

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO and State of Ohio, Department of Administrative Services. Office of Collective Bargaining

Ohio Council 8, Amercian Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority dba Greater Dayton Premier Management

The parties jointly filed Petitions for Amendment of Certification seeking to amend the existing units to reflect certain negotiated changes. The proposed amendment appears appropriate.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board approve the jointly filed petitions and amend the units accordingly. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


7.

8.


Case 2012-REP-03-0037

Case 2012-REP-05-0057

June 21, 2012 Page 5 of 21

Franklin County Board of Developmental Disabilities Education Association, OEA!NEA and Franklin County Board of Developmental Disabilities

Delaware Area Career Center Education Association, OEAINEA and Delaware Area Career Center Board of Education

The Employee Organizations filed Petitions for Amendment of Certification seeking to amend the certification to change the Employee Organizations' name. In each case, the Employer has filed a response stating that it does not oppose the name change. In Case No. 2012-REP-03-0037, the Employer filed a position statement indicating that its name has also changed. The Employee Organization agreed to include the Employer's name change in the current petition. The proposed amendments appear to be appropriate.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board approve the petitions and amend the certifications accordingly. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: Affirmed X Denied

9. Case 2012-REP-02-0024 Barbara A. Reindel and Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and Shelby County Department of Job and Family Services and Shelby County Commissioners

There were 30 valid ballots cast There was 1 void ballot There were 0 challenged ballots Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO received 13 votes No Representative received 17 votes and prevailed in this election.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board certify the election results and certify that the employees in the unit have chosen to have no exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA: ZIMPHER: Affirmed X Denied

10.

11.

12.

13.


June 21, 2012

Case 2011-REP-12-0140

Case 2011-REP-12-0141

Case 2012-REP-01-0002

Case 2012-REP-01-0010

Page 6 of 21

Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. and Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and Lake Township Board of Trustees, Stark County (Patrol Officers)

There were 3 valid ballots cast There were 0 void ballots There were 0 challenged ballots No Representative received 0 votes Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association received 0 votes Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. received 3 votes and prevailed in this election.

Fraternal Order of Police. Ohio Labor Council, Inc. and Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and Lake Township Board of Trustees, Stark County (Sergeants)

There were 3 valid ballots cast There were 0 void ballots There were 0 challenged ballots No Representative received 0 votes Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association received 0 votes Fraternal Order of Police. Ohio Labor Council, Inc. received 3 votes and prevailed in this election.

Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. and City of Bexley

There were 4 valid ballots cast There were 0 void ballots There were 0 challenged ballots No Representative received 0 votes Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. received 4 votes and prevailed in this election.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local #20 and City of Waterville

There were 4 valid ballots cast There were 0 void ballots There were 0 challenged ballots No Representative received 1 vote International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local #20


June 21, 2012 Page 7 of 21

received 3 votes and prevailed in this election.

14. Case 2012-REP-01-0011 Monroe Township Professional Firefighters IAFF and Monroe Township, Clermont County

There were 3 valid ballots cast There were 0 void ballots There were 0 challenged ballots No Representative received 0 votes Monroe Township Professional Firefighters IAFF received 3 votes and prevailed in this election.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board certify the election results and certify each prevailing employee organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the relevant bargaining unit. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


15. Case 2012-REP-01-0004

Denied

Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council. Inc. and Cleveland State University

The Employer filed a Petition for Amendment of Certification seeking to amend the existing Board-certified unit to exclude the classification of Law Enforcement Officer 3 pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4117.06(D)(6) which states that the Board, with respect to members of a police department, cannot include rank and file members with members who are Sergeant or above. The Employer also maintains the classification should be excluded from the bargaining unit because the employees work as shift supervisors, are designated as peace officers per the Ohio Revised Code, and have job duties similar to police officers.

The Employee Organization filed a position statement opposing the amendment asserting that the classification has been included in the unit since the original certification in 1984. The Employee Organization also asserts that the Law Enforcement Officers are not members of a police department. Ohio Revised Code Section 4117.01 (N) defines a "member of a police department."

In a previous case involving a University, SERB determined that "separate bargaining units were not appropriate under§ 4117.06 because the Police Sergeants and Police Officers employed by the College ... are appointed under O.R.C. § 3345.04 and are not "members of a police department" within the meaning of § 4117.01(N)," Hocking Technical College, SERB 2008-ALJ-004 (6-20-2008).

Thus, the individuals classified as Law Enforcement Officer 3 at the Cleveland State University are not members of a police department as specified by Ohio Revised Code Section 4117.01(N).


June 21, 2012 Page 8 of 21

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss without prejudice the Petition for Amendment of Certification. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


16. Case 2012-REP-01-0006 Joyce Bunfill and Teamsters Local Union 637 and Countrvview Assisted Living Center

Pursuant to a Petition for Decertification Election, the Board conducted a mail-ballot election. The ballots were counted at SERB's offices on May 22, 2012. The results of the election were: twenty-four (24) valid ballots were cast; twelve (12) votes were for Teamsters Local Union 637, twelve (12) votes were for "No Representative," and there were zero (0) challenged ballots.

Pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 4117-5-09(A), "in a decertification election in which the resulting vote is equally divided between the incumbent representative and "no representative," it will be determined that the incumbent has prevailed." A Tally of Ballots stating that Teamsters Local Union 637 prevailed was issued to all parties on May 22, 2012.

On June 1, 2012, the Employer filed Post-Election Objections. The Employer objects to voter Phyllis Brown's eligibility, participation in the election, and challenges the election's results. According to the objections, the Employer's Executive Director, Adrianne Paden ("Ms. Paden"), prepared and submitted the voter eligibility list to counsel who in turn provided the same list to the State Employment Relations Board ("SERB") on April 23, 2012. The list included Ms. Brown who had been working without pay on a leave of absence since November 19, 2011. The Employer alleges that unbeknownst to Ms. Paden, Ms. Brown applied for disability benefits which were subsequently granted on November 27, 2011. The objections state that Ms. Paden learned of Ms. Brown's disability status on April 25, 2012; however, she did not inform her legal counsel or SERB of the severance of employment since she was unaware that she could have Ms. Brown's name removed from the eligibility list.

The Incumbent Employee Organization did not file a reply to the post-election objections. On June 11, 2012, the Petitioner filed a timely reply to the post-election objections agreeing with the Employer's objections.

Pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code 4117-5-08(B)(4), "An observer for any party to the election or an agent of the board may challenge for good cause the eligibility of any person to participate in the election." With a mail-ballot election, all parties have the opportunity to challenge a ballot throughout the entire election process, up to and including the Tally of Ballots.

SERB's internal Mail-Ballot Election Procedures (updated January 25, 2010 and posted on SERB's website), state that at the Tally of Ballots, the designated representatives and the Board agent have the opportunity to challenge any ballots prior to the opening of the return envelopes. All unchallenged ballots are then separated from their return envelopes and coming led prior to the actual count.


June 21, 2012 Page 9 of 21

Pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code 4117-5-07(C):

Failure to object in writing to the board to the form or content of the election eligibility list prior to the commencement of an election shall constitute as waiver of the objection if the objecting party knew of the defect prior to the election, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known.

SERB must determine if the Employer knew or reasonably should have known that Ms. Brown's eligibility should have been challenged prior to the counting of the ballots. According to Ms. Paden's affidavit, she called Ms. Brown on multiple occasions from January 2012 through March 2012 to check on her employment status but did not receive any return calls; then on April 20, 2012, she submitted the eligibility list to her legal counsel.

Ms. Paden's states that she did not know that she could alter the election eligibility list once filed, though she admits to making numerous inquires as to Ms. Brown's employment status prior to submitting the eligibility list. Therefore, the exercise of reasonable diligence existed prior to the commencement of the election.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board deny the Employer's post-election objections and certify the election results. Because the employees were represented prior to the election for the purposes of collective bargaining, Teamsters Local Union 637 remains certified as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit pursuant to Rule 4117-5-09(A) of the Ohio Administrative Code. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


17. Case 2012-REP-01-0014

Denied

Stephen G. Nellett and Magaretta Teachers Association OEA!NEA and Townsend Community School and Margaretta Local School District Board of Education

The Employee Organization is the deemed-certified exclusive representative of certain employees of the Margaretta Local School District Board of Education (Employer). The Townsend Community School is a conversion community school created in July 2011 by the Employer. The Petitioner filed an amended Petition for Decertification pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3314.1 O(A)(5).

The Townsend Community School has filed a position statement supporting the Petition for Decertification. The Employee Organization has filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively stay the petition. It has been determined that the Petition meets the requirements of Ohio Revised Code §3314. 10(A)(5).

No existing employees from the District were transferred to the Townsend Community Conversion School. Although Ohio Revised Code§ 3314.1 O(A)(3) provides, in part, that "the employees of the community school shall remain part of any collective bargaining unit in which they were included immediately prior to the conversion," the Recognition clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Margaretta Local School District Board of Education and Margaretta Teachers Association excludes "community school employees."


June 21, 2012 Page 10 of 21

Ohio Revised Code §4117.1 O(A) provides, in part, that "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 state or local laws or ordinances pertaining to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for public employees." Since the Contract language specifically excludes community school employees and none of them were ever transferred or covered under the terms of Collective Bargaining Agreement, it is not necessary to decertify the employees from the unit; because they were never in the unit.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board deny the Employee Organization's motion, and dismiss the amended Petition for Decertification because the employees in question were never in the unit. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: Affirmed X Denied

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDATIONS AT ISSUE:

1. Case 2012-REP-02-0020 Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and City of Louisville

The Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association ("Employee Organization" or "OPBA") is the Board-certified exclusive representative of patrolmen employed by the City of Louisville ("Employer" or "City") (Case No. 84-VR-04-0346). On February 3, 2012, OPBA filed a Petition for Clarification of Bargaining Unit, seeking to clarify the existing bargaining unit of patrolmen to include an "interim" patrolman. On February 21, 2012, the City filed a position statement in opposition to the Petition for Clarification of Bargaining Unit.

On April 5, 2012, the State Employment Relations Board ("the Board") directed this matter to a non-oral hearing to be submitted directly to the Board on joint stipulations of fact, legal briefs, and exhibits. On May 9, 2012, the City filed its legal brief and exhibits. OPBA declined to comply with the Board's April 5, 2012 Directive. According to OPBA's representative, the union has nothing more to add to its original petition.

The purpose of a petition for clarification is to determine whether a particular employee or group of employees is included in or excluded from a particular bargaining unit based upon the existing unit description and the duties performed by the employees in question. Ohio Administrative Code Rule 4117-5-01(E)(1) "Unit clarification does not alter the status quo, but rather maintains it." In re Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, SERB 95-021 (12-29-95).

The information contained in the record establishes that the City of Louisville Police Department is composed of a police chief, two lieutenants, six fulltime patrolmen, and eleven part-time patrolmen, who are scheduled as needed. During a training exercise on January 30, 2010, one of the lieutenants was injured and has been unable to perform his duties since that time. As a result of that injury, a fulltime patrolman has been performing the duties of the injured lieutenant and a part-time patrolman, Ed Collins, has assumed the duties of the fulltime patrolman. Officer Collins accepted the temporary assignment to fill in for the fulltime patrolman until the injured lieutenant returned to active duty. To date, the injured lieutenant remains on inactive status and Officer Collins


June 21, 2012 Page 11 of 21

has regularly worked a fulltime schedule of 40 hours per week since the lieutenant's injury.

OPBA filed the instant Petition for Clarification of Bargaining Unit seeking to include Officer Collins in the existing bargaining unit due to his temporary assignment. Consequently, the only issue in this case is whether it is appropriate to include a parttime patrolman in the existing bargaining unit based upon his temporary assignment to fill in for a fulltime patrolman as a result of an injury disability.

At the outset, it is noted that the parties' collective bargaining agreement does not address the temporary or "interim" status of a part-time patrolman who is filling in for a fulltime patrolman as a result of illness or injury. However, Article 30, Section 3 of the collective bargaining agreement provides that if the agreement does not specify terms regarding an employment matter, Chapter 157 of the Codified Ordinances of Louisville ("COL") applies. COL § 157.01 sets forth the City's classification and compensation plan, which considers a fulltime patrolman position a "higher position" than a part-time patrolman position for purposes of a temporary assignment. COL § 157.04 describes the criteria for temporary assignments.

COL§ 157.04 states, in pertinent part:

(3) Temporary assignments. An employee assigned to temporarily assume the duties of a higher position in the Classification Plan shall receive additional compensation for such temporary assignment provided certain conditions are met. The additional compensation shall be the greater of a 5% increase over the employee's then current rate of pay or the minimum rate of the position the employee is temporarily filling. The conditions required for such additional compensation are as follows:

A. The employee is performing the full range of duties of the higher position;

B. The employee is performing the duties for a period exceeding ten working days; and

C. The temporary assignment and compensation are approved in advance by the City Manager. In the event of a major illness or injury creating the need for such temporary assignment, approval shall be documented as soon as is possible after learning of the severity of the injury or illness.

In addition to the City's ordinances, Louisville Civil Service Regulations, Rule 7, addresses temporary or interim appointments and is similar to Ohio Revised Code § 124.30. Rule 7 provides, in pertinent part:

In case of emergency an appointment may be made without regards to the Civil Service Laws or the Rules of the Commission, but in no case to continue longer than one hundred eighty (180) days, and in no case shall successive temporary appointments be made; provided, however, that interim or temporary appointments made necessary by reason of sickness or disability of the regular


June 21, 2012 Page 12 of 21

employee shall continue only during such period of sickness or disability ...

Upon review of the above-cited provisions, it is clear that these provisions authorize a temporary assignment such as the one Officer Collins accepted in 2010. Although Officer Collins' temporary assignment has lasted for a significant length of time, the above-cited legal provisions recognize that the time needed to recover from an injury is unpredictable and that the City needs to be able to address such an occurrence in an efficient manner. In its brief, the City confirms the temporary nature of Officer Collins' assignment by noting that the fulltime patrolman who is filling in for the injured lieutenant has remained in the bargaining unit during his temporary assignment, and that upon the return of the injured lieutenant, Officer Collins will return to his part-time position and the patrolman filling in for the injured lieutenant will return to his fulltime patrolman position.

The only information provided by OPBA in support of its petition is a copy of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. OPBA notes that the recognition clause in the parties' collective bargaining agreement provides that the bargaining unit includes "all patrolmen in the Louisville Police Department" OPBA argues that since the recognition clause has no qualifiers such as "fulltime" or "permanent," Ed Collins should be included as a member of the bargaining unit.

With regard to the existing bargaining unit, it is noted that the Board's June 6, 1984 Order of Certification describes the bargaining unit as follows: "Included: Patrolmen. Excluded: Chief of Police and all other employees." With regard to part-time patrolmen, it is noted that although the information in the record establishes that Officer Collins has been employed by the City as a part-time patrolman and that the City currently employs eleven part-time patrolmen, there is no information in the record to establish that the parties have ever considered. part-time patrolmen as members of the bargaining unit since the inception of the unit in 1984. Therefore, given that the purpose of a petition for clarification of bargaining unit is to maintain the status quo with respect to unit composition, it would not be appropriate to utilize Officer Collins' temporary assignment to alter the parties' long-standing practice of excluding part-time patrolmen from the existing bargaining unit

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board find that, based on the process of temporary assignment as provided for in the City's codified ordinances and civil service rules and as utilized by the City thus far, the bargaining unit remain the same with part-time patrolman Ed Collins being temporarily assigned and not part of the bargaining unit of fulltime patrolmen, and as a result of such finding, dismiss the Petition for Clarification of Bargaining Unit filed by the Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.



June 21, 2012 Page 13 of 21

2. Case 2012-ULP-02-0039 SERB v. Crooksville Exempted Village School District Board of Education

On February 24, 2012, the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, AFSCME Local 4, AFL-CIO ("Charging Party") filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Crooksville Exempted Village School District Board of Education ("Charged Party" or "Respondent"), alleging that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code §§ 4117.11(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).

On May 3, 2012, the State Employment Relations Board ("the Board" or "Complainant") determined that probable cause existed for believing Charged Party had committed or was committing an unfair labor practice, authorized the issuance of a complaint, and referred the matter to hearing. On May 17, 2012, a complaint was issued and the matter was set for hearing.

On June 6, 2012, the parties filed a settlement agreement. In paragraph 11 of the settlement agreement, the parties request that the Board construe the agreement as a motion to dismiss the unfair labor practice charge and complaint with prejudice. The parties have agreed that the Board retains jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board construe the parties' settlement agreement as a motion to dismiss, grant the motion, and dismiss with prejudice the unfair labor practice charge and complaint in Case No. 2012-ULP-02-0039. The Board retains jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA Yes ZIMPHER: Yes Affirmed X Denied

3. Case 2012-ULP-04-0084 SERB v. City of Niles

On April 16, 2012, the Niles Firefighters, IAFF Local 320 ("Charging Party") filed an unfair labor practice charge against the City of Niles ("Charged Party" or "Respondent"), alleging that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code§§ 4117.11 (A)(1) and (A)(5).

On May 31, 2012, the State Employment Relations Board ("the Board" or "Complainant") determined that probable cause existed for believing Charged Party had committed or was committing an unfair labor practice, authorized the issuance of a complaint, and referred the matter to hearing.

On June 13, 2012, the parties filed a settlement agreement On June 14, 2012, Charging Party filed a motion to withdraw the unfair labor practice charge.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss with prejudice the unfair labor practice charge in Case No. 2012-ULP-04-0084. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Affirmed


June 21,2012 Page 14 of 21

Yes SPADA: Yes X Denied

ZIMPHER:

V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE MATTERS AT ISSUE:

1. Case 2012-ULP-04-0079 Adam Miller v. State of Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Pickaway Correctional Institution

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (A)(?) and (8) by ignoring contract language and interfering with his guaranteed rights.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed the matter is strictly contractual and has been remedied through the parties' grievance procedure.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice for Jack of probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed by Charged Party. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


2. Case 2012-ULP-04-0080 Adam Miller v. Ohio Civil Service Emolovees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (B)(2) and (6) by failing to fairly represent him.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed the matter is strictly contractual and has been remedied through the parties' grievance procedure.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed by Charged Party. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


3. Case 2012-ULP-04-0085 Kim Osting v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (8)(6) by failing to fairly represent the members of the bargaining unit.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed Charged Party's actions do not rise to the level of a violation. It appears the actions taken by Charged Party were in accordance with the provisions of a settlement agreement in Case No. 2012-ULP-02-


June 21, 2012 Page 15 of 21

0042. All employees were treated the same way under the provisions of the settlement.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed by Charged Party. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


4. Case 2012-ULP-04-0072 Carol L. Candelaria-Conners v. Indian Creek Education Association, OEAINEA

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (B)(6) by failing to represent the membership regarding contract violations when it refused to file a grievance.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed Charged Party's actions do not appear to be arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith when it refused to file a grievance for Charging Party. The comments made by Charged Party's President do not rise to the level of a statutory violation. Charging Party appears to have an issue with Charged Party because it did not accept her interpretation of the contract language regarding substitutes. Charged Party provided documentation to show it investigated and resolved Charging Party's concerns at the LMC meetings and advised her of such. Charging Party did not initiate the grievance on her own behalf as is permitted in the agreement.



5. Case 2012-ULP-04-0086 Weaver Workshop and Support Association, OEAINEA v. Summit County Board of Developmental Disabilities

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (A)(1) and (5) by unilaterally assigning bargaining-unit work to nonbargainingunit employees.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed the matter appears to be contractual with no arguable statutory violation. The Production Specialist Job Description does not specifically identify any of the hours of work or the work to be performed regarding the Earthcare contract. Charged Party is still utilizing one bargaining-unit member to perform the supervisory duties when the Weaver Industries crew is doing landscaping on its property. All but one of the affected bargaining-unit members were offered and accepted equivalent positions within the same unit or a new bargaining unit with no loss of pay, benefits or seniority.


June 21, 2012 Page 16 of 21

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed by Charged Party. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


6. Case 2012-ULP-04-0095 Glenn Cunningham and Matt Payne v. City of Brunswick

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117 11 (A)(1 ), (2), and (8) by retaliating against them for the exercise of their guaranteed rights.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed Charged Party's actions do not appear to rise to the level of a statutory violation. Charged Party provided documentation to show that Lt. Payne was acting as an officer of the Fire Department and not as a union member when he ordered the on-duty members out of a Union meeting on January 29, 2012, and received a subsequent 3-day suspension for his actions. Lt. Payne was able to file a grievance and have it processed by Charged Party up to and including arbitration. Charging Parties did not provide sufficient information or documentation to support the (A)(2) and (8) allegations.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed by Charged Party, and deny Charged Party's Motion to Defer as moot. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Yes SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: Yes ----·---.. Affirmed X Denied

7. Case 2012-ULP-06-0132 Leon D. Murohv v Columbus Professional Fire Fighters Union, IAFF Local 67

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (B)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5).

Information gathered during the investigation revealed the unfair labor practice charge was filed on June 1, 2012. Charging Party was notified in writing on June 4, 2012 that a dismissal recommendation would be made to the Board unless information and/or allegations were provided to toll the statute of limitations. The unfair labor practice charge does not appear to be timely filed. Using the June 30, 2011 date referenced in the charge, the charge should have been filed on or before September 28, 2011. Charging Party was afforded until June 11, 2012 to provide the information in the form of an amended unfair labor practice charge. To date, Charging Party has failed to provide any information or documentation to toll the statute of limitations.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice as untimely filed. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: Affirmed


June 21, 2012 Page 17 of 21

Yes SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: X Denied

Yes

8. Case 2012-ULP-03-0062 Alice Bond-Minor v. Service Employees International Union, District 1199

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (B)(6) by failing to represent her.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed the allegations referenced in the charge are untimely filed for the instant charge. Charging Party did not provide any information to toll the statute of limitations.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed and as untimely filed. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


9. Case 2012-ULP-04-0094 Airiana S. Pittman v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFLCIO

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (B)(6) by failing to fairly represent her.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed the allegations referenced in the charge are untimely filed for the instant charge. Charging Party did not provide any information to toll the statute of limitations. Charging Party was bumped from her position on January 6, 2012 and a grievance was filed on April 12, 2012. Pursuant to Section 25 of the parties' agreement, all grievances related to the layoff must be filed within ten (10) days. Charging Party's grievance was untimely filed.

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice as untimely filed. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


10. Case 2012-ULP-05-01 06 Airiana S. Pittman v. State of Ohio, Department of Developmental Disabilities, Northwest Ohio Developmental Center

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (A)(B) by causing or attempting to cause the Union to commit an unfair labor practice charge.

Information gathered during the investigation revealed the allegations referenced in the charge are untimely filed for the instant charge. Charging Party did not provide any


June 21,2012 Page 18 of 21

information to toll the statute of limitations. Charging Party was bumped from her position on January 6, 2012 and a grievance was filed on April 12, 2012. Pursuant to Section 25 of the parties' agreement, all grievances related to the layoff must be filed within ten (1 0) days. Charging Party's grievance was untimely filed.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice as untimely filed. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


11. Case 2012-ULP-04-0073 Hocking College Education Association - Support Staff. OEA/NEA v. Hocking College

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (A)(1) and (5) by unilaterally implementing its final offer.

Chair Zimpher moved that the Board dismiss the charge with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed by Changed Party. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Board Member Brundige added that it appeared the parties had reached ultimate impasse. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


12. Case 2012-ULP-04-0074 Hocking College Education Association, OEA/NEA v. Hocking College

The unfair labor practice charge alleged that Charged Party violated Ohio Revised Code § 4117.11 (A)(1) and (5) by (A)(1) and (5).

Information gathered during the investigation revealed Charged Party's actions do not rise to the level of a statutory violation. Charging Party failed to provide information to support the (A)(1) and (5) allegations.



13. Case 2012-ULP-01-0019 Cameron Brian Williams. Sr. v. Citv of Cleveland

14. Case 2012-ULP-03-0046 James Michael Partridge v. Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and Its Local 240

15. Case 2012-ULP-03-0047 David Holland v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local268


June 21, 2012 Page 19 of 21

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board construe the requests for reconsideration as motions for reconsideration, and deny the motions with prejudice. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


16. Case 2012-ERC-06-0002 Transport Workers Union of America Local 208 v. Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)

17. Case 2012-ULP-05-0107 Kenneth Cunningham v. Cuyahoga County -Sheriff's Office

18. Case 2012-ULP-05-0115 Communications Workers of America, Local 4501, AFL-CIO v. The Ohio State University

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board construe the requests to withdraw as motions to withdraw and grant the motions with prejudice. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


VI. TABLED AND OTHER MATTERS:

1' Case 2011-REP-11-0124 Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and City of Rocky River Tabled- May 31, 2012

VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:

SERB REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING DATES: • Reminder of the regular scheduled meeting dates of the State Employment Relations Board:

"' July 19 > August 16

SYSTEM UPDATES: • SERB Annual Report 2012: Final data and slats are due to Cheri Alexander for Don

Leonard to format by July 161h. Don Leonard will collect and distill the data, put the data into the appropriate format and prepare the document for publication. The report is due on the desk of Governor Kasich by August 1 '1.

• Annual Report on the Cost of Health Insurance in Ohio's Public Sector Timeline: Project is 45% complete at this point in time, everything is on schedule. July 16: Report ready for publishing August 1: 2012 Health Insurance Report available to public.

• Procedures Committee is continuing to meet once a week. We are whittling down the list. To date 66 procedures covering both SERB and SPBR have been finalized. Twenty (20) are


June 21, 2012 Page 20 of 21

remaining to be completed. As procedures are produced and approved, they are placed in a binder.

• SERB's FY 2013 GRF Disbursements schedule was submitted to the Office of Budget and Management (OBM) and Central Services Administration (CSA) on June 6, 2012. SERB's allotment for FY2013 is $3,848,532.00.

• Workforce Plan for DAS: The plan was submitted on June 14, 2012. It is available for review in the office of the Executive Director. It has 5 Sections: 1. Executive Summary (Mission, Goals and Objectives, T.O. etc.) 2. Workload Analysis/Challenges/ Measurements/Data 3. Supply and Workforce Analysis/Workforce Indicators and Data 4. Gap Analysis/Priorities 5. Action Plan Implementation/Future Actions/Milestones/Mission Impact/Goals and

Objective Impact of Future Actions should they not be addressed. • Employee Organization Compliance tracking of requirement to annually file

certain reports: Out of 796 "tickler letters" sent 45 days prior to the deadline of May 151

h for Employee Organizations whose fiscal year ended on December 31'1, 61 organizations are currently not in compliance. The Research and Training staff is in contact with each of these organizations to determine their status.

• Audit Update: SFY 2011-12 audit of the State Employment Relations Board has basically been completed. The audit began on Tuesday, May 1, 2012. It is anticipated the Exit Conference will be scheduled soon.

• Media Policy: Distribution of a new Media Policy for Read and Sign and inclusion into the Employee Handbook was recently done. Attached for the Board Members.

• Thank You: To all staff who have been assisting Research & Training with Contract Reading and Data Sheets. To date more than 200 contracts have been read.

• Thank You: To Barb Kelly for successfully coordinating the Operation Feed Campaign this year. The goal was to collect $113 in order to buy 340 meals ($1 buys 3 meals). $200 was collected from the purchase of "dress down" stickers. $200 buys 600 meals! SERB surpassed its goal by $87 and 260 meals for the campaign. Good job and thanks to all who helped support the cause.

FORWARD LOOK FOR FUTURE TRAINING: • Staff Retreat Scheduled: A retreat for team development to focus on the organization's

teamwork and performance has been developed for SERB staff. Date is set for July 26th, off site location; it will last for an entire work day. Staff have been advised that they need to mark their calendars and are not to make any RFL requests that are not already in the system for that date.

• Reminder: Required Ethics Training for all staff and Board members will be held on Thursday, July 12, 2012 here at our offices from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. In addition, Ohio Public Works Commission will be joining us for this training. Chris and Jim have met the criteria for the Ethics Training and thus will be available to cover the Clerk's Office.

• Fact Finders Conference- scheduled for August 10, 2012. To be held at the Ramada off of 71 N and Morse Road.


June 21, 2012 Page 21 of 21

VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION:

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board go into executive session, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 121.22(G)(3) to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.

Vote: BRUNDIGE: SPADA: Yes ZIMPHER: Affirmed Denied

The Board went into Executive Session at 10:40 a.m.

Vice Chair Spada moved that the Board exit from Executive Session. Board Member Brundige seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for discussion and the vote.


The Board exited from Executive Session at 11:04 a.m.

IX. ADJOURNMENT:

Board Member Brundige moved that the Board adjourn the meeting. Vice Chair Spada seconded the motion. Chair Zimpher called for the vote.


The Board meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m.

Documents

1h Chair Robert F. Spada, and Board Member N. … · Chair Robert F. Spada, ... June 21, 2012 Page 2 of 21 ... The final contract was filed with our office on February 1, 2012