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.

Hawkins v. Marion Correctional Institute (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 863; cert denied 55 Ohio St.3d 705. Statute granting procedural rights to subjects of investigations did not require transcription of stenographic notes taken at the employee's pretermination hearing.

Singh v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 269. R.C. 124.56 makes no provision for the rights of a complainant so far as an investigation for violation of R.C. Ch. 124. is concerned, or of the standing of a complainant for appeal in the event that he is dissatisfied with the results of the investigation.

Crews v. Ohio Dept. of Industrial Relations (Oct. 13, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-779, unreported, 1992 WL 292398. A complainant has no standing to appeal the results of a requested investigation for alleged abuse of promotion under R.C. 124.56.

Martin v. Franklin County Sheriff (June 25, 1991) Franklin App. No. 90AP-1342, unreported, 1991 WL 123981. The two-year "laches" rule codified in O.A.C. 124-3-04 is subject to tolling where appellant requests continuances during the course of investigation and disciplinary proceedings; O.A.C. 124-3-04 is a valid exercise of the state personnel board of review's rule-making authority because it creates no absolute measurement of law but rather establishes one parameter for measuring the reasonableness of the disciplinary action taken. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Malone v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Apr. 15, 1986), Lawrence App. No. 1756, unreported, 1986 WL 4497. R.C. 124.56 affords an employee no right of appeal from the results of an investigation. View Court of Appeals Decision

Stark County Sheriff v. State Personnel Board of Review (Feb. 7, 1986) Ohio Ct. Cl., No. 85-10022. Where an investigation by the state personnel board of review in no way conflicts with the employment status of any person presently employed by an appointing authority, the appointing authority may not enjoin the board from proceeding in its investigation by asserting that the collective bargaining agreement mandates the grievance procedures to be followed; collective bargaining agreements govern as to matters of salary, hours, terms and conditions of employment. View Court of Claims Decision

Metzenbaum v. State Personnel Board of Review (May 30, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF03-2114, unreported. There is no right to appeal the state personnel board of review's orders relative to statutory investigations made pursuant to R.C. 124.56; the state personnel board of review's only connection to an appeal is as an administrative reviewing body and not one of the original parties to the controversy.

Chavis v. Ohio Public Works Commission (Mar. 11, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93-CVF-12-8638, unreported. R.C. 124.56 does not provide a right of appeal from the results of an investigation by the state personnel board of review. View Common Pleas Decision | 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

Auditor of State v. Lorain Civil Service Commission (Nov. 10, 1987), PBR 87-INV-07-0620. Where the director of a civil service commission refuses to certify a payroll that was not accurate and did not reflect all employees and their pay status, certification is not willfully or maliciously withheld and is not a violation of duties meriting a report to the Governor by the state personnel board of review. View SPBR Order

Harris v. Stark County Sheriff (Feb. 14, 1986), PBR 85-INV-08-1207. Although employees whose positions are subject to a collective bargaining agreement may negotiate a change in their recall rights, the collective bargaining agreement cannot change the rights of parties who are not subject to that agreement; where employees are displaced into positions that are subject to the collective bargaining agreement, the agreement does not change their recall rights to their former positions, which were not subject to the agreement. 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

    A. MunicipalitiesOhio Association of Public School Employees, Chapter No. 471 v. City of Twinsburg (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 180. A chartered municipality, under its home-rule authority, may enact an ordinance limiting the jurisdiction of its civil service commission to only city employees, notwithstanding R.C. 124.011(A).

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 Personnel Board of Review v. City of Bay Village Civil Service Commission (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 214. In order for general state law to supercede a municipality's home-rule authority, the matter must 1) have significant extraterritorial effects (State, ex rel. Evans v. Moore (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 88); and 2) the regulation of the subject matter must affect the general public of the state as a whole more than it does the local inhabitants (Kettering v. State Employment Relations Board (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 50).

Kettering v. State Employment Relations Board (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 50. Public employee labor strife is a proper subject for application of the statewide concern doctrine; even if there is a matter of local concern involved, if the regulation of the subject matter affects the general public of the state as a whole more than it does the local inhabitants the matter passes from what was a matter for local government to a matter of general state interest.

State, ex rel. Zone v. City of Cleveland (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 1. Mandamus will not lie to compel a municipality to pay back wages to municipal skilled employees who contend they were de facto appointed to "foreman" positions by their supervisors and thus were entitled to the prevailing wage rates for such positions established between skilled building tradesmen and employers in the private sector, in the absence of a prior appointment to those positions.

State, ex rel. Evans v. Moore (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 88. A municipality's home-rule authority must yield to general state laws where the municipal regulations have significant extraterritorial effects on areas of statewide concern.

Beachwood v. Board of Elections of Cuyahoga County (1958), 167 Ohio St. 369. Even if there is a matter of local concern involved, if the regulation of the subject matter affects the general public of the state as a whole more than it does the local inhabitants, the matter passes from what was a matter for local government to a matter of general state interest.

Painter v. Graley (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 65; cert denied 70 Ohio St.3d 377. City of Cleveland may prohibit its unclassified civil service employees from seeking elective office; Ohio municipalities such as the city of Cleveland have general home-rule authority to regulate the appointment, removal, qualifications, compensation and duties of its offices and employees.

Springfield Command Officers Association v. Springfield City Commission (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 301; cert denied 58 Ohio St.3d 701. Provisions in municipal charter adopted pursuant to constitution which pertain to appointment of officers within city's police force are exercise of local self-government and thus prevail in event of conflict with statutory civil service provisions.

Fehr v. Murdock (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 95. Unless prohibited by statute or agreement, when municipal employees are transferred to county employment, the county employer may compute step-pay increases based on the employees' uniform starting date in county employment, rather than their earlier starting dates in municipal employment.

Ebright v. Whitehall (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 29. When a municipality requires its police officers to report to roll call fifteen minutes prior to the beginning of a shift and they are ready for duty and subject to inspection and are given instructions, information and assignments and are subject to disciplinary action for failure to attend, they are entitled to a wage rate of one and one-half times their wage rate for the time worked for roll call, which was in excess of forty hours in one week and eight hours in one day.

Ring v. Fox (1977), 56 Ohio App.2d 235. Where the rules of a municipal civil service commission in a home-rule city require that notice of promotional examinations to be given firemen be provided to candidates, but the contents of the notice are not detailed, the requirements of R.C. 124.45 are applicable if the city has adopted state laws not in conflict with its charter.

Toledo v. State, ex rel. Lawler (1935), 51 Ohio App. 329. The power and responsibility of the administration of purely local affairs are vested in a municipality to the exclusion of the power of the state to legislate on the subject; civil service is not a purely local power and municipalities may only legislate with regard to its civil service so long as provisions made in its charter comply with the requirements of Section 10 of Article XV of the Ohio Constitution, and do not conflict with any other provisions of the constitution.

Ohio Association of Public School Employees v. City of Twinsburg (Dec. 3, 1986) Summit App. Nos. 12581 and 12598, unreported, 1986 WL 13701. Ordinance holding that the Twinsburg Civil Service Commission would not provide service to the Twinsburg City School District or its classified employees was unconstitutional; because the ordinance conflicted directly with the prevailing state law, it "must therefore yield to the statewide concern that the classified employees of the state have uniform local access to civil service commissions throughout the state."

Adkins v. City of Portsmouth (Mar. 20 1986), Scioto App. No. 1549, unreported. A municipal civil service commission has no power pursuant to R.C. 124.34 to hear appeals by classified civil service employees who are suspended, demoted, or removed; the administrative denial of sick leave benefits does not constitute a suspension as that word is generally used. View Court of Appeals Decision

Brotherton v. Amherst Civil Service Commission (Jan. 23, 1991), PBR 90-INV-08-0861; aff'd (NO DATE), Franklin Co. No. 91CVF04-2777, unreported. Pursuant to R.C. 124.40, where a municipal civil service commission fails to provide a classified civil servant of that municipality with a hearing following his or her termination of employment, the commission has violated the civil service laws of the State of Ohio. View SPBR Order

Boomer v. Lakewood Civil Service Commission (July 21, 1986), PBR 85-INV-07-0955. R.C. 4117.10(A) does not preclude the state personnel board of review from the investigation of a municipal civil service commission pursuant to R.C. 124.56. View SPBR Order

1941 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 3846. Where a city has adopted the charter plan of government and no provision is made in the charter to implement the provisions of Section 10 of Article XV of the Constitution of Ohio, the applicable provisions of the state laws will govern and control until such provision is made in the charter.