Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Keller v. City of Columbus

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 2003No. 2002-0551Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGrendell, J.

{¶ 55} I concur in the well-reasoned and erudite opinion of the majority, with one exception. The exception is that this court should adopt the following proposition: Negotiation of the destruction of public records involving terms that are contrary to, or conflict with, the Public Records Act is not permitted within collective bargaining.

{¶ 56} To the extent that plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the current collective bargaining agreement establishes a schedule for the destruction of public records that conflicts with or fails to comply with the Ohio Public Records Act, plaintiffs’…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Cincinnati v. Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County & Municipal EmployeesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. National Labor Relations Board v. Amalgamated Lithographers Of America (Ind.)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
  3. Parents Union for Public Schools v. Board of Education of School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API