In re Appeal of Ford (1982), 3 Ohio App.3d 416. The words "in service of the state," as used in R.C. 124.01, connote employment by an agency of the state of employees compensated in whole or in part by state funds; employment in the service of the state under R.C. 124.01 has two requisites: (1) employment by a state agency, and (2) compensation in whole or in part from state funds, whether general or special, regardless of the source of such state funds.

In re Appeal of Ford (1982), 3 Ohio App.3d 416. R.C. 124.01 includes only specified political subdivisions within the definition of civil service, so that employment with all other political subdivisions, such as townships, local school districts, conservancy districts, court districts and other political subdivisions, whether constituting more than one or only part of one county, are not included within the definition of civil service.

Durkin v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Mar. 29, 1996), Mahoning App. No. 95CA60, unreported, 1996 WL 148604. Where an employee files an appeal of his "no order" reduction with the state personnel board of review and, subsequently, accepts a promotion so that he no longer occupies the position complained of in his appeal, the employee's appeal of his "no order" reduction is not moot and the employee is merely mitigating the effects of same. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

MacKnight v. Lake County Dept. of Human Services (Oct. 31), 1995), Franklin App. No. 95APE02-188, unreported, 1995 WL 645258. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction to set appellant's salary when appellant displaces into a bargaining unit position subsequent to the abolishment of her position in the exempt classified service. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Treciak v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce (Mar. 24, 1995), Licking App. No. 94-CA-00085, unreported, 1995 WL 347999; cert denied (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 1453. The state personnel board of review has jurisdiction over an unclassified employee's appeal of his or her layoff, where appellant's status was changed from classified to unclassified and appellant was laid off from that position six months later. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Veney v. Massilon Psychiatric Center (June 7, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-12-1684, unreported, 1994 WL 250243. O.A.C. 124-5-02 gives employees an opportunity to prove (where no order has been filed with the state personnel board of review) that formal action was, in fact, taken to effectuate a reduction in position; informal action is not appealable, grounds lie only where there is formal agency action giving rise to a final decision.

Kittrells v. Ohio Lottery Commission (Mar. 22, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-08-1176, unreported, 1994 WL 97123. Appellant must demonstrate a resulting adverse employment action to trigger the state personnel board of review's jurisdiction under R.C. 124.03; where Appellant retained the same title and job description after her status was changed from classified to unclassified, she was not "reassigned" or "reclassified" within the meaning of R.C. Chapter 124. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Gatts v. Massillon Psychiatric Center, et al. (Dec. 30, 1993), Stark App. No. CA 9422, unreported, 1993 WL 564226. O.A.C. 5122-7-11(G) conflicts with the jurisdiction conferred upon the state personnel board of review by R.C. 124.03; to the extent that a provision of the Ohio Administrative Code acts to modify the meaning of the Revised Code, it impermissibly changes a legislative entitlement and it invalid (citing McAninch v. Crumbley (1981), 65 Ohio St. 2d 31, 34). View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Repasky v. Youngstown State University (July 26, 1993), Mahoning App. No. 92-CA-103, unreported, 1993 WL 291362. A provision of a collective bargaining agreement which allows appellee to elect between reclassifying appellant or removing duties that do not properly fall within appellant's classification does not divest the state personnel board of review of jurisdiction to consider any reclassification where the agreement itself specifically takes the question of reclassification out of the grievance procedure and incorporates R.C. Ch. 124. into the agreement.

Sommerville v. Erie County Commissioners (Aug. 31, 1990), Erie App. No. E-89-39, unreported, 1990 WL 125682. Where appellant's conduct is, as a matter of law, a proper reason for removal, the state personnel board of review is limited to a review of whether the facts support a finding that appellant engaged in such conduct.

Casalicchio v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (June 28, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 57200, unreported, 1990 WL 88716. A classified civil servant's remedy to appeal his discharge pursuant to R.C. Ch. 124. is by administrative appeal to the state personnel board of review; the statutory remedy is exclusive and appellant may not bring an independent action contrary to the statutory procedures.

State, ex rel. Kent State University v. State Personnel Board of Review (June 21, 1990), Franklin App. No. 90AP-525, unreported, 1990 WL 85135. R.C. 124.14(D) mandates the filing, within thirty days of the director's written decision regarding the requested reclassification, of a written request with the state personnel board of review; the filing of notices with the department of administrative services constitutes a jurisdictional defect under R.C. 124.14 and board has no authority to entertain the appeals. View Court of Appeals Decision

Monico v. Girard Board of Education (Dec. 7, 1987), Trumbull App. No. 3716, unreported, 1987 WL 26711. The state personnel board of review or civil service commissions are not deprived of jurisdiction over matters which are not the subject of a final and binding grievance procedure contained in a collective bargaining agreement. View Court of Appeals Decision

Collyer v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability (Sept. 3, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF12-8740, unreported. Where Appellant has already been granted the relief he seeks by agency order in a separate but related matter, a further appeal seeking the same relief is moot. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Collyer v. Ohio Dept. of MR/DD (Aug. 12, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF07-5023, unreported. Because the State Personnel Board of Review has jurisdiction over layoff appeals brought by classified employees from final decisions of appointing authorities, where Appellant was involuntary disability separated at the time the facility at which he worked was closed and the record does not indicate that the appointing authority made any order regarding Appellant's layoff from that facility, the Board has no jurisdiction to take any action regarding the layoff. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Joys v. University of Toledo (June 26, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF12-9016, unreported. The decision of Appellant to take PERS retirement benefits immediately after Appellant's job was abolished does not moot Appellant's appeal of the job abolishment to the State Personnel Board of Review; R.C. 145.38(B)(1) allows a PERS retired individual to become reemployed by the state, therefore, the Board would not have been without remedy if the job abolishment were disaffirmed. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Solsman v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Feb. 26, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF07-5142, unreported. Where the results of a job audit indicate that appellant's job duties were not changed sufficiently to result in a reduction in position, appellant must file an appeal of the results of that job audit in order to prevent his earlier-filed appeal of his alleged improper reduction from becoming moot. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Solsman v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Oct. 16, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF07-5199, unreported. While it is true that state administrative agency hearings must accord the parties procedural fairness, it is also true that tribunals have the authority to determine their jurisdiction; no state board or commission can be compelled to expend its limited time and resources in reviewing every matter bought before it without regard to the statutory propriety of its authority to hear the issues. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Keesy v. Ohio Bureau of Worker's Compensation (May 22, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 92CVF11-9117, unreported. Where appellant voluntarily accepted employment in a classification which was under a collective bargaining agreement and was subsequently involuntarily transferred to another position, appellant's remedy is limited to R.C. Ch. 4117., and the provisions of the agreement; the state personnel board of review has no authority to review the transfer. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

McIlwain v. Ferguson (May 8, 1995), Butler Co., No. CV92-09-1699, unreported. The state personnel board of review must confine its inquiry upon remand to the specific issues outlined by the remanding court. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order (Remand) | View Common Pleas Decision (Remanding to SPBR) | View SPBR Order

Wolford, et al. v. Streetsboro City School District Board of Education (Mar. 21, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF04-2469, unreported. The state personnel board of review has jurisdiction to hear appeals from employees of a city school district when a direct appeal to the board is provided as an option for recourse in the city school district's collective bargaining agreement. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Lake County Department of Human Services v. MacKnight (Jan. 12, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF02-820, unreported. Where appellant bumps into a position covered under a collective bargaining agreement, the issue of salary determination is exclusively in the province of the collective bargaining process and the state personnel board of review has no authority to assign a pay rate. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Feichter v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (July 9, 1993), Franklin Co., No. 91CVF-07-5205, unreported. The state legislature did not intend to give the state personnel board of review jurisdiction to review the legality of rules promulgated by the department of administrative services pursuant to its enabling statutes; while the board may determine what classification is most appropriate for an individual performing appellant's job duties, the board has no authority to determine whether the creation of the holding classification was lawful. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Rapier v. Darke County Board of MR/DD (Mar. 10, 1993), Franklin Co., No. 92-CV-09-7589, unreported. The full scope of due process does not extend to short suspensions; the state personnel board of review has no jurisdiction under R.C. 124.34 to hear an appeal of a three-day suspension and no legal authority to modify the law as written by the General Assembly. View Common Pleas Decision

Lee v. Summit County Sheriff (June 6, 1992), Summit Co., No. CV-92-02-0600, unreported; rev'd (Apr. 7, 1993), Summit App. No. 15828, unreported, 1993 WL 99870. The requirement of O.A.C. 124-3-01(A)(4) that a notice of removal be filed within ten days after the order has been served on the employee is not jurisdictional, in the sense that the ten days are not absolute, but can be extended "unless good cause can be shown for failing to file timely." View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Foster v. Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Hillcrest School (Aug. 21, 1996), PBR Case No. 95-RED-10-0506; aff'd (**, 1996) Full Board. The State Personnel Board of Review has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a single-county residential placement center for juvenile delinquents. View SPBR Order

Ferrell v. Belmont-Harrison-Monroe Drug and Alcohol Council, Inc. (May 18, 1995), PBR 94-WHB-09-0354, aff'd (June 13, 1994) Full Board. An employee of a private not-for-profit entity which provides services to county residents pursuant to a contractual agreement with a mental health board of the state of Ohio is not made a state or county employee by virtue of the entity's relationship with the political subdivisions set forth in its contract. View SPBR Order

Frank v. Portage/Geauga County Detention Center (Mar. 17, 1992), PBR Case No. 91-LAY-08-0524; aff'd (Apr. 13, 1992) Full Board. The State Personnel Board of Review has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a multi-county juvenile detention center. View SPBR Order

Crowley v. Board of Tax Appeals (Oct. 23, 1991), PBR 91-MIS-08-0541; aff'd (Nov. 25, 1991), Full Board; aff'd (Feb. 3, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 91CVF12-9937. The state personnel board of review has no authority to issue a declaratory judgment stating that an employee is in the classified service rather than the unclassified service; whether or not an appointing authority's designation of a position is correct is an issue that can only be determined when the board's jurisdiction has been invoked in regard to an adverse personnel action suffered by an employee. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Pilmore v. Williams County Clerk of Courts (May 13, 1991), PBR 91-REM-01-0008; aff'd (June 11, 1991), Full Board; aff'd (NO DATE), Williams Co., No. 91CI00-0076, unreported. The constitutionality of sections of the Ohio Revised Code is not an issue which the state personnel board of review is empowered to resolve; the board is charged with the duty of enforcing Ohio laws and regulations and is not empowered to invalidate Ohio statutes. View SPBR Order

Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corrections (Dec. 8, 1993), PBR 93-RMD-04-0529; aff'd (Jan 21, 1994), Full Board. The absence of an original signature of an appointing authority on an order of removal does not constitute a clerical error within the meaning of O.A.C. 124-03-03(B)(2) but, rather, presents issues of jurisdiction. View Common Pleas Decision

Isaacs v. Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund (Apr. 13, 1992), PBR 91-WHB-12-0803; aff'd (May 8, 1992), Full Board. Applying the two-prong test set forth in In re Appeal of Ford (1982), 3 Ohio App.3d 416, the police & firemen's disability & pension fund is not an agency of the state and the state personnel board of review does not have jurisdiction over appeals from its employees. View SPBR Order

Kiss v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Jan. 18, 1990), PBR 89-REC-02-0129. Jurisdiction of the state personnel board of review may not be given, limited or defined by agreement between a labor union and a public employer. View SPBR Order

Nelson v. Tecumseh Consortium (Feb. 17, 1989), PBR 88-SUS-10-0542. Where an entity not in service to the state or county files a suspension order with the state personnel board of review, equity does not operate to confer jurisdiction on the board; subject matter jurisdiction of the board is statutory and may not be conferred by an agreement of the parties. View SPBR Order

Christian v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Aug. 29, 1988), PBR 88-REC-06-0289. The state personnel board of review does not have any authority to hear appeals from employees relative to a job audit conducted by any department other than the department of administrative services. View SPBR Order

Cottrill v. Apple Creek Developmental Center (Aug. 25, 1986) PBR 86-REM-07-1083. Employee's appeal of her removal, filed with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association within ten days of the date of the removal order, does not constitute timely filing with the state personnel board of review; board has no authority to entertain the appeal. View SPBR Order

Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction (Jan. 3, 1985), PBR 84-INV-08-1109. R.C. 124.56 does not invest the state personnel board of review with the jurisdiction to investigate charges of racial discrimination. View SPBR Order

1995 Op. Atty Gen. No. 018. Employment by a non-profit library association that provides library services to a county pursuant to contract is not service with that county for purposes of R.C. 9.44 or R.C. 325.19; employment by a non-profit library association that has not been created as a division of the state by authority of the state is not service with a "political subdivision" for purposes of R.C. 9.44 and R.C. 325.19; employment by a non-profit library association that has not been created by statute to exercise a portion of the sovreignty of the state as authorized by statute is not service with the state for purposes of R.C. 9.44.