Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. Village of Lordstown

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 27, 1997No. 96-T-5461Published

1DissentFord, Presiding Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because I fail to perceive any ambiguity in the CBA’s requirement for “just cause” to discipline officers. “Just cause” merely sets forth a common standard of employee discipline usually involving suspension or separation from the workplace. It has been implemented statutorily in Ohio. See, e.g., R.C. 3319.16 and 4141.29. This writer perceives nothing inherently ambiguous in the CBA’s use of the term “just cause,” nor simply because the standard is expressed in a clause of the CBA separate from the disciplinary clause. Further, I cannot agree…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. City of Warrensville Heights v. JenningsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Hastings Mutual Insurance v. ClyneOhio Court of Appeals · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API