Advertisement

May 25, 2013

Ohio Public Employee Picketing Provision Declared Unconstitutional

A recent opinion of the Ohio Appeals Court dealt a victory to picketing public employees when it found the state’s decades-old law regulating strikes and picketing by public employees unconstitutional as an impermissible restriction on free speech. The Ohio statute at issue was part of the state’s act governing bargaining rights of public employees and included a provision making it an unfair labor practice for a public employee labor organization to “engage in any picketing, striking, or other concerted refusal to work without giving written notice to the public employer and to the state employment relations board not less than ten days prior to the action.”

The union representing employees of Mahoning County Board of Developmental Disabilities was found to have violated the statute after picketing a Board meeting without notice. The union challenged the law on constitutional grounds, claiming that the restrictions on picketing violated public employees’ First Amendment rights to free speech.  After an Ohio trial court upheld the law, the Ohio Appeals Court reversed, finding that the law should be classified as a “disfavored speaker” law because it restricted only public employees from picketing without notice and not any other class of citizens.  Because of this, the law was to be analyzed under a strict scrutiny standard. The state had argued that the statute should be seen as a “content-neutral” regulation, imposing reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, which would have been analyzed under the more favorable intermediate scrutiny standard.

After applying the strict scrutiny standard, the Appeals Court found that the law was not justified by a compelling state interest and was not narrowly tailored, therefore it was unconstitutional.  It remains to be seen whether the State Employee Relations Board will continue to enforce the notice provision now that it has been found unconstitutional or whether this decision will be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The case is Mahoning Edn. Assn. of Dev. Disabilities v. State Emp. Relations Bd., No. 11 MA 52 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2012). The full opinion can be found online here.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Mr. Brodie is a partner in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Grand Rapids, Michigan office. He devotes his practice exclusively to labor and employment law. He is a practitioner and counselor to his clients on labor matters including collective bargaining, union organizing, NLRB unfair labor practice charge defense, and labor strategies for mergers, acquisitions and reorganizations. Mr. Brodie also has experience counseling clients regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employment discrimination investigations and claims, employee hiring,...

616-742-3958

About the Author

Associate

Christine Holst is an associate in the Grand Rapids office of Barnes & Thornburg and is a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department. She focuses her practice on general labor and employment matters and defense of Title VII, ADEA, and other employment discrimination cases.

616-742-3927

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.