Recent Ohio case law has significantly clarified how courts interpret management rights provisions and zipper clauses in collective bargaining agreements. Two key decisions from the Eighth District Court of Appeals in 2024 provide important guidance for unions challenging unilateral employer actions.

Union representatives and labor advocates often face employers who claim broad authority to make unilateral changes based on management rights clauses and zipper provisions in collective bargaining agreements. Two recent Ohio cases have delivered important victories for unions by limiting these employer defenses and reaffirming fundamental principles of collective bargaining.

The Cases: City of Cleveland v. State Employment Relations Board

In two parallel cases involving the same parties—the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Association of Rescue Employees (CARE)—the Eighth District Court of Appeals addressed similar disputes about how to interpret CBA provisions in relation to statutory bargaining rights.

Case 1: Part-Time Employees and Work Reassignment

In the first case, the City attempted to hire part-time paramedics without bargaining with CARE. The City claimed its management rights clause and waiver provision in the CBA relieved it of any obligation to negotiate this decision with the union.

The court firmly rejected this argument, establishing several key principles:

The reassignment of bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under Ohio law
A CBA must contain an explicit waiver of the union's statutory right to bargain over such reassignments
General management rights clauses cannot override statutory bargaining obligations
For a waiver to be effective, the evidence must clearly show that the union "consciously yielded" its statutory rights

The court held that the CBA language did not operate as an explicit waiver of CARE's right to require the City to bargain over reassigning work to non-bargaining unit employees. This is significant because employers frequently attempt to use broadly-worded management rights clauses to justify unilateral changes that affect terms and conditions of employment.

Case 2: Dashboard Cameras and Effects Bargaining

In the second case, the City unilaterally installed dashboard cameras in emergency vehicles without bargaining with CARE. The court made an important distinction:

The decision to use dashboard camera technology fell within the City's managerial discretion (a permissive bargaining subject)
However, the effects of this decision on working conditions remained a mandatory subject of bargaining

The court again rejected the City's claim that the CBA waived the union's right to bargain, finding that neither the zipper clause nor management rights provisions created a clear and unmistakable waiver of effects bargaining.

The term of the contract where the parties waive the right "to demand new proposals on any subject or matter" not specifically included in the contract would vitiate the union's statutory right under R.C. 4117.08 to bargain matters pertaining to new conditions of employment. To interpret the clause that way would be to effectively repeal, for these parties, that section of the Ohio Revised Code.

Key Legal Principles Established

These cases establish or reaffirm several important principles for Ohio labor relations:

1. Management Rights Clauses Have Limits

While a CBA may reserve certain decision-making authority to management, these rights are not absolute. Even when a decision falls within management's rights (like implementing new technology), the employer must still bargain over how that decision affects wages, hours, and working conditions.

The court emphasized that R.C. 4117.08(C) requires bargaining over the effects of management decisions on "wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment, and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement."

2. Waiver of Statutory Rights Requires Clear Language

For a union to waive statutory bargaining rights, the waiver must be "clear and unmistakable." Courts will scrutinize whether:

The CBA specifically eliminates the statutory right
The evidence clearly shows the union "consciously yielded" the right

General management rights clauses or zipper clauses are insufficient to establish such a waiver.

3. Zipper Clauses Cannot Eliminate Statutory Rights

The court expressed significant skepticism about interpreting zipper clauses (which typically state that parties waive the right to demand bargaining on matters not included in the contract) to eliminate statutory rights. The court noted that such an interpretation would:

"Vitiate the union's statutory right under R.C. 4117.08 to bargain matters pertaining to new conditions of employment"
"Effectively repeal, for these parties, that section of the Ohio Revised Code"
Be "inconsistent with public policy as evidenced by R.C. 4117.08"

4. Surface Bargaining Is Not Sufficient

The court recognized that merely offering to "meet and confer" while maintaining that there is no obligation to bargain does not satisfy an employer's statutory obligation to bargain in good faith. The City's consistent position that it had no legal obligation to bargain undermined its claim that the union waived rights by declining to meet.

In the second case, the court noted: "Any suggestion the City made to 'meet and confer' was made in the context of its repeated denial that it had any obligation under law to bargain... The union, therefore, even if it declined the suggestion to 'meet and confer' did not waive a right the existence of which the City still refuses to acknowledge."

Implications for Ohio Labor Relations

For Unions:

Assert Your Bargaining Rights: Even with broad management rights clauses, you retain the right to demand effects bargaining on decisions that impact working conditions.
Document Refusals to Bargain: When an employer claims it has no obligation to bargain, document this position clearly to preserve your rights for a potential unfair labor practice charge.
Scrutinize Proposed CBA Language: During negotiations, be wary of overly broad management rights clauses or zipper clauses that might be interpreted as waiving statutory rights.
Know When to File ULP Charges: These cases affirm that unilateral changes affecting terms and conditions of employment without bargaining constitute unfair labor practices, even when the employer claims management rights.

Conclusion

These decisions represent significant victories for Ohio public sector unions by reaffirming the principle that statutory bargaining rights cannot be easily waived through general contract language. Employers should be cautious about implementing unilateral changes without bargaining, even when they believe those changes fall within their management rights.

The court's skepticism toward broad interpretations of zipper clauses and management rights provisions provides important ammunition for unions challenging unilateral employer actions. These cases make clear that Ohio law strongly favors collective bargaining over unilateral decision-making when changes affect terms and conditions of employment.

Ohio Union Labor Lawyers