Union members facing disputes within their own organizations often want immediate relief from the State Employment Relations Board. However, Ohio law requires a crucial preliminary step that many overlook: exhausting all available internal union remedies before SERB will consider certain unfair labor practice charges. Understanding this requirement and navigating it properly can determine whether a member's complaint ever receives a hearing on its merits.

This requirement reflects a fundamental principle of labor law: unions deserve the opportunity to resolve their own internal disputes before state agencies intervene. Yet this principle must be balanced against the statutory rights of union members and the unforgiving deadlines for preserving those rights.

Why Internal Remedies Matter to SERB

The State Employment Relations Board maintains what it calls a "practice of restraint concerning matters involving internal union affairs." This restraint serves multiple purposes. It respects the autonomy of employee organizations to govern themselves. It prevents SERB from becoming entangled in every internal union dispute. And it ensures that unions' own democratic processes have the opportunity to function before external intervention occurs.

However, this restraint has limits. SERB retains subject matter jurisdiction over activities that may constitute unfair labor practices, even when they arise within internal union affairs. Union practices that violate members' rights under Chapter 4117 receive the same scrutiny as employer violations. A union cannot shield illegal conduct simply by labeling it an internal matter.

The exhaustion requirement applies most commonly to disputes about union elections, officer eligibility, internal discipline, and the application of union bylaws. When members challenge these types of internal union actions as unfair labor practices, SERB typically requires proof that all available internal appeal processes have been pursued before it will proceed with the case.

Learning from the Amalgamated Transit Union Cases

Two cases involving Amalgamated Transit Union Local 268 illustrate both the strict application of the exhaustion requirement and its important exceptions.

In the Nix case, William H. Nix filed ULP charges alleging his union failed to conduct a fair election. He had appealed to the International President, who denied his appeal. However, the union's constitution provided for a further appeal to the International's General Executive Board. Because Nix failed to pursue this additional level of appeal, SERB dismissed his charges. The Board declared that deciding the case without exhaustion of internal remedies would constitute "unwarranted intervention into internal union business."

The McGrady case demonstrates a critical exception. Terry McGrady filed charges alleging the union denied his right to run for office. After initially dismissing the case for failure to exhaust remedies, SERB reconsidered when McGrady provided new information. He had attempted to pursue internal appeals, but the International President refused to consider them because McGrady had already filed with SERB. The union essentially blocked McGrady from exhausting internal remedies due to his SERB filing.

SERB found that McGrady had effectively exhausted his internal remedies since the union itself prevented him from pursuing them further. This allowed the Board to proceed to the merits of his charges. The case establishes that unions cannot defeat members' rights by refusing to process internal appeals after SERB charges are filed.

The 90-Day Trap: Preserving Rights While Pursuing Remedies

The most dangerous pitfall in navigating internal union remedies involves Ohio's strict 90-day statute of limitations for filing ULP charges. This deadline begins running the day after the alleged violation occurs and cannot be extended. Missing this deadline means losing the right to challenge the conduct forever, regardless of how egregious the violation.

Internal union appeal processes often take months to complete. Multiple levels of review, waiting periods between appeals, and scheduling delays can easily consume more than 90 days. Members who wait for internal processes to conclude before filing with SERB often discover they have permanently lost their right to relief.

The solution requires filing parallel tracks. Members must file their SERB charges within 90 days while simultaneously pursuing internal union appeals. SERB will hold the investigation in abeyance pending exhaustion of internal remedies. This approach preserves the right to SERB review while respecting the union's opportunity to resolve matters internally.

Union representatives advising members about internal disputes must emphasize this dual-track approach. Calculate the 90-day deadline immediately upon learning of any potential violation. File the SERB charge before that deadline expires, even if internal appeals remain pending. Include in the charge a clear statement that internal remedies are being pursued and request that SERB hold the matter in abeyance.

What Constitutes Exhaustion of Remedies

Exhaustion means pursuing all available appeals through every level provided in the union's constitution and bylaws. Reading these documents carefully is essential. Many union constitutions provide multiple levels of appeal: local union, district council, international union, and sometimes convention appeals. Missing any required level can result in dismissal of SERB charges.

The appeals must be pursued in good faith with reasonable diligence. Simply filing an appeal is not enough; members must follow through with required documentation, attend hearings if scheduled, and meet all procedural requirements. Unions often have specific forms, deadlines, and procedures for internal appeals. Failure to comply with these requirements can defeat both the internal appeal and any subsequent SERB charge.

However, exhaustion does not require futile acts. If a union's highest body has already decided the exact issue in another case, repeated appeals may not be necessary. If the union blocks access to its appeal process or makes clear that appeals will not be considered, exhaustion may be excused. Each situation requires careful analysis of whether further internal efforts would be genuinely futile.

Strategic Considerations for Unions

Unions face complex strategic considerations when members pursue internal remedies. On one hand, resolving disputes internally strengthens union democracy and avoids external interference. On the other hand, blocking or delaying internal processes can lead to SERB intervention and potential liability.

Unions should ensure their internal appeal processes are accessible, clearly defined, and reasonably prompt. Constitutions and bylaws should specify deadlines, procedures, and decision-making authority at each level. Training officers who handle appeals helps ensure consistent, fair processes that members will trust.

When members file SERB charges while internal appeals are pending, unions should continue processing the internal appeals rather than refusing to consider them. The McGrady case makes clear that blocking internal remedies because of SERB filings can backfire, allowing SERB to proceed immediately to the merits.

Unions should also consider whether modifying internal procedures might better serve members while preserving organizational autonomy. Expedited procedures for time-sensitive matters, clear communication about appeal rights and deadlines, and transparent decision-making processes can reduce the likelihood that members will seek external intervention.

Practical Guidance for Managing the Process

Members confronting potential ULP violations within their unions need a clear action plan. Document the violation immediately, including dates, participants, and specific actions taken. Obtain copies of all relevant union constitutions, bylaws, and policies. These documents control what internal remedies are available and how to pursue them.

Calculate the 90-day SERB filing deadline and mark it prominently. Begin preparing the SERB charge immediately, even while pursuing internal remedies. File with SERB before the deadline expires, explicitly noting that internal remedies are being pursued.

Simultaneously, begin the internal appeal process without delay. Follow every procedural requirement meticulously. Keep detailed records of all internal appeals, including copies of submissions, correspondence, and any responses received. If the union fails to respond within its own deadlines or refuses to process appeals, document these failures carefully.

Consider seeking assistance from union counsel familiar with both internal union procedures and SERB practice. The interplay between internal remedies and SERB jurisdiction involves complex legal issues that can trap the unwary.

Conclusion: Balance and Vigilance

The requirement to exhaust internal union remedies reflects a delicate balance between union autonomy and member rights. SERB's practice of restraint respects unions' ability to govern themselves while ensuring that violations of statutory rights do not go unremedied.

Successfully navigating this balance requires understanding both the exhaustion requirement and its exceptions. It demands vigilance about deadlines and careful attention to procedural requirements. Most importantly, it requires recognizing that internal union remedies and SERB charges are not mutually exclusive options but parallel paths that must be pursued simultaneously.

For unions, maintaining fair and accessible internal procedures serves both organizational interests and member rights. For members, understanding the exhaustion requirement and the 90-day rule can mean the difference between obtaining relief and losing all recourse. In the complex world of internal union disputes, knowledge of these requirements provides the foundation for protecting rights while respecting union democracy.