State ex rel. Camaco, L.L.C. v. Albu (Slip Opinion)

Objections to magistrate's decision recommending denial of relator's request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order granting an employee's application for an additional award of compensation based on a violation of a specific safety requirement and ordering the commission to either deny the application or grant a rehearing are overruled. By its plain language, Ohio Adm.Code 4123-3-13(D)(1) applies when "employees may be exposed to moving ground or cave-ins," and it does not require the employee to be inside a trench. Although the employee's accident occurred in Michigan, Ohio Adm.Code 4123-3-13(D)(1) applies, because compliance with that rule does not preclude an employer from also complying with Michigan's rules, which only apply when an employee is required to enter a trench. Objections overruled, and writ denied.

Mandamus—Labor relations—Public employees—R.C. Ch. 4117—State Employment Relations Board abused its discretion in dismissing public employee's unfair-labor-practice charge against employer because employer did not have authority to determine that employee's notice to arbitrate was untimely under collective-bargaining agreement—Board abused its discretion when it dismissed public employee's unfair-labor-practice charge against union without providing basic rationale for dismissal—Board did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed public employee's additional unfair-labor-practice charge against union, because union acted in accordance with public employee's waiver of union representation—Court of appeals' judgment granting writ of mandamus affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.