State, ex rel. Pennington v. Ross (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 58. Employees hired under the Emergency Employment Act do not acquire status as a classified civil service employee regardless of the fact that, if regularly employed, such status would attach; state personnel board of review has no jurisdiction over such an employee.

Ketron v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1991), 61 Ohio App.3d 657. Provision allowing the state personnel board of review to hear appeals relative to public employee's assignment or reassignment to a new or different position classification does not provide the board with jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a promotion.

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority v. State Employment Relations Board (Jan. 31, 1989), Hamilton App. No. C-880205, unreported, 1989 WL 6149; rev'd (1990) 53 Ohio St.3d 221. The employees of a local housing authority are not subject to civil service laws (Sup. Ct. opinion reversed with respect to R.C. 4117.10 issue only).

Adams v. Wray (Mar. 15, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-09-1283, unreported, 1994 WL 85626. A change in appellants' status, from classified to unclassified, does not establish a present controversy; until an employment action is taken which triggers the protections claimed to have been lost, no genuine controversy exists and appellants' claims are not ripe for adjudication.

Hanes v. Franklin County Sheriff (June 28, 1988), Franklin App. No. 87AP-1067, unreported, 1988 WL 70444. The language of O.A.C. 124-1-05, which gives the state personnel board of review jurisdiction to determine whether the appointing authority has complied with applicable rules and statutes, merely provides the board with jurisdiction to review situations pursuant to various sections of R.C. Ch. 124, including R.C. 124.56, but in no way suggests that that "jurisdiction" may be invoked to allow an appeal of a second-half probationary removal, even if appellants contend they dispute only the procedural aspects of the removal. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Gallagher v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (Jan. 26, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF08-5314, unreported. The state personnel board of review does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal by an employee in the unclassified service whose appointment has been revoked and who has been reinstated to a position in the classified service pursuant to R.C. 5123.08 and O.A.C. 5123-7-11. 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

Spindler v. State Personnel Board of Review (Nov. 26, 1991), Medina Co., No. 55594, unreported. A notice of appeal that fails to state the grounds for the appeal does not comply with R.C. 119.12 and is not properly perfected; because R.C. 119.12 does not grant any right to amend a notice of appeal, an appeal which fails to state the grounds for the appeal must be dismissed. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Mitton v. State Personnel Board of Review (Aug. 9, 1978), Franklin Co., No. 77CV-10-4300, unreported. An appointing authority may orally reassign an employee to different duties consistent with his civil service classification without complying with the written order requirements of R.C. 124.34; state personnel board of review has no jurisdiction over an oral alleged reduction.

Snyder v. Washington County Career Center (June 27, 1996), PBR Case No. 96-SUS-05-0207; aff'd (Aug. 6, 1996) Full Board. The State Personnel Board of Review has no jurisdiction over a joint vocational school district created pursuant to R.C. 3311.18 and composed of local school districts from counties, townships, and municipalities. View SPBR Order

Moore v. Champaign County Soil and Water Conservation District (May 7, 1996), PBR Case No. 96-REM-02-0058; aff'd (June 3, 1996) Full Board. The State Personnel Board of Review has no jurisdiction over a soil and water conservation district created pursuant to R.C. Chapter 1515.; such an organization is statutorily denominated by R.C. 1515.03 as a political subdivision of the state. View SPBR Order

Pirsil v. Geauga Park District (May 27, 1994), PBR 94-REM-01-0003; aff'd (Oct. 4, 1994), Full Board. The civil service of the state of Ohio is not applicable to persons employed by a board of park commissioners of a park district created under R.C. 1545.01; the park commissioners may not confer jurisdiction upon the state personnel board of review that does not exist pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code. View SPBR Order

May v. Fairfield County Children Services (May 21, 1992), PBR 92-INV-04-0175; aff'd (July 2, 1992), Full Board. Because R.C. 4112.02(A) specifically denominates the civil rights commission as the appropriate body to investigate allegations of discrimination based on religious beliefs, the commission is a more proper forum for an investigation based on this ground than is the state personnel board of review. View SPBR Order

Kiss v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Jan. 18, 1990), PBR 89-REC-02-0129. When the department of administrative services has refused to reclassify a position on the basis of the submission of an updated position description, it has not made a final decision and, therefore, the board has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal based on the refusal until the audit process has been exhausted. View SPBR Order

Wade v. Hocking Technical College (Oct. 5, 1989), PBR 89-REM-08-0405. The state personnel board of review does not have jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from employees of technical colleges created pursuant to R.C. Ch. 3357, see also 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 062 and 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 3073. View SPBR Order

Brooks v. Hamilton County Commissioners (Nov. 23, 1988), PBR 87-RED-10-0739. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction over appeals of employees in the classified service when: 1) the employee is a member of a bargaining unit as recognized by the state employment relations board; 2) that bargaining unit has, by election or by consent of the employer, selected an exclusive bargaining representative; and 3) the duly elected bargaining representative has concluded a labor agreement with the employer which provides for final and binding arbitration of grievances. View SPBR Order

Stack v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Aug. 29, 1988), PBR 88-REC-04-0160. The state personnel board of review has no jurisdiction over reclassification appeals under a classification plan that has not been approved by the department of administrative services. View SPBR Order

Dakin v. Butler County Dept. of Human Services (Mar. 5, 1985), PBR 84-INV-08-1139. Whether an employee meets the minimum qualifications is a matter completely within the purview of the department of administrative services, division of personnel, and the state personnel board of review has no jurisdiction to review such a decision. View SPBR Order

Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction (Jan. 3, 1985), PBR 84-INV-08-1109. Pursuant to O.A.C. 123:1-25-01(H) and 124-1-02(AA), where an employee's job location is changed but his classification, the county in which he works and the appointing authority remain the same, the employee has no right of appeal. View SPBR Order

    A. Hybrid Organizations

Jones v. Warren County Combined Health District (Sept. 27, 1993), PBR 93-INV-05-0353; aff'd (Nov. 18, 1993), Full Board. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction over appeals from employees of a combined health district, where the district is composed of municipalities and townships and governed by an independent board; a combined health district is a hybrid organization. View SPBR Order

Manns v. Corrections Commission of Northwest Ohio (Nov. 19, 1992), PBR 92-REM-07-0415; aff'd (Dec. 22, 1992), Full Board. Where an appointing authority is composed of both counties and a municipality, is not funded in whole or in part by the state, its service boundaries are not coextensive with any county or other politicial subdivision, and it is governed by an independent board, the state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction over appeals by its employees. View SPBR Order

Crawford v. Paulding Soil and Water Conservation District (Nov. 9, 1988), PBR 88-REM-08-0450; aff'd (Nov. 25, 1988), Full Board. Soil and water conservation districts are hybrid entities and constitute political subdivisions separate from both the county and state; service to a soil and water conservation district is not county or state employment. View SPBR Order

    B. Municipalities

Sutherland-Wagner v. Brook Park Civil Service Commission (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 323. R.C. 124.34 does not give the state personnel board of review jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a classified civil servant employed by a municipality; where the civil service commission of a municipality upholds the suspension of a classified employee for disciplinary reasons, that decision may be appealed to the court of common pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.

State Personnel Board of Review v. City of Bay Village Civil Service Commission (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 214. The state personnel board of review does not have investigative or removal authority over charter municipalities' civil service commissions when the municipalities' charters establish their own removal procedures.

State, ex rel. Canada v. Phillips (1958), 168 Ohio St. 191. The authority of the general assembly, to enact laws applicable to cities pursuant to 10 of Article XV of the Ohio Constitution, is an authority to enact such laws to be applicable in cities only where and to the extent that such laws will not restrict the exercise by such cities of their powers of local self-government.

Lynch v. Tiffenbach (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 174. It is within the purview of local self-government granted by the home-rule provisions of the Ohio Constitution for a charter city to vary its civil service regulations, as long as they are otherwise constitutional.

Harbarger v. Ballard (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 281. Under 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, a home-rule city has power over civil service and public employee situations and is unrestricted by state law.

Luce v. City of Coshocton (May 3, 1995), PBR 95-REM-02-0093, Full Board. R.C. 124.34 does not provide municipal civil service employees with an equal right of appeal to both a local civil service commission and the state personnel board of review. View SPBR Order

Jones v. Warren County Combined Health District (Sept. 27, 1993), PBR 93-INV-05-0353; aff'd (Nov. 18, 1993), Full Board. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction over appeals from employees of a combined health district, where the district is composed of municipalities and townships and governed by an independent board; a combined health district is a hybrid organization. View SPBR Order

Manns v. Corrections Commission of Northwest Ohio (Nov. 19, 1992), PBR 92-REM-07-0415; aff'd (Dec. 22, 1992), Full Board. Where an appointing authority is composed of both counties and a municipality, is not funded in whole or in part by the state, its service boundaries are not coextensive with any county or other politicial subdivision, and it is governed by an independent board, the state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction over appeals by its employees. View SPBR Order

    C. Probationary Removals

Walton v. Montgomery County Welfare Dept. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 58. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction to review removals on the merits during the second half of an employee's probationary period.

Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Aug. 16, 1993), Fayette App. No. CA93-03-009, unreported, 1993 WL 306763. The alleged violation of several administrative code provisions by appellant's second-half probationary period removal does not confer jurisdiction on the state personnel board of review.

Whittaker v. Rice (June 17, 1991), Montgomery App. No. 11993, unreported, 1991 WL 108742. The factual determination of whether an appellant was in the second half of her probationary period is crucial to the determination of the state personnel board of review's jurisdiction; it would be a waste of time for the parties and the board to conduct a hearing on the merits without first determining the jurisdictional issue.

Carr v. University of Cincinnati (May 24, 1991), Hamilton Co., No. A-9005821, unreported; dismissed (NO DATE), Hamilton App. No. C9104752, unreported. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction over the appeals of employees removed during the second half of their probationary periods. View Common Pleas Decision

    D. Regional Organizations

Langer v. Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio (May 16, 1994), PBR 94-REM-03-0077; aff'd (June 17, 1994), Full Board. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction over appeals from employees of regional entities that are governed by a board of trustees rather than a state or county appointing authority, and whose employees are paid by public funds rather than state or county funds. View SPBR Order

Miller v. Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio (May 16, 1994), PBR 94-REM-03-0076; aff'd (June 7, 1994), Full Board. The state personnel board of review does not have jurisdiction over regional entities, as their employees are not governed by a state or county appointing authority, but are instead generally governed by a board of trustees; employees of a regional solid waste management authority are not "classified employees" in the "service of the state." View SPBR Order

Milburn v. Atwood Regional Water and Sewer District (Apr. 28, 1992), PBR 91-RED-04-0244; aff'd (June 2, 1992), Full Board. Classified status may be attained by an employee of a regional water and sewer district created and operated under the provisions of R.C. Ch. 6119. if, and only if, the employee fits under one or more of the employee descriptions found within R.C. 6119.37; absent qualification under this section, the employee is not entitled to classified status. View SPBR Order

1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 063. Employees of a regional council of governments established pursuant to R.C. 167.01 by community mental health service districts established pursuant to R.C. 340.01 are not in the "civil service" as defined in R.C. 124.01(A).

1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 064. Where a joint board of county commissioners is created for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a multicounty detention and treatment facility for the training and treatment of juveniles, the county prosecuting attorneys of the participating counties have no duty to provide legal counsel for the joint board of county commissioners; when a joint-county entity is created, such board or officers may not be considered a county board or county officers.

    E. School Districts

Adkins v. State Personnel Board of Review (1986), 32 Ohio App.3d 32. The state personnel board of review does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from a municipal civil service commission brought by a person dismissed from employment by a multi-city school district.View Court of Appeals Decision