Skip to main content

Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union AFL CIO Local 1385

Ohio Ct. App.December 21, 2018No. 28086Cited 2 times
Defendant WinGreater Dayton Regional Transit Authority$35,024 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Donovan
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the arbitration award in favor of the Union. The arbitrator properly found that the RTA violated the collective bargaining agreement by subcontracting out bus sign removal and replacement work without written notice to the Union, and the $35,024 back pay award was supported by the contract terms.

Excerpt

The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to vacate an arbitration award or by granting appellee's application to confirm the award. The arbitrator's interpretation of procedural rules, interpretation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and interpretation of Ohio law were all within the scope of his powers. Judgment affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

# Court Ruling Summary: Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority v. Local 1385 **What Happened** The Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (RTA) hired outside contractors to remove and replace bus signs—work normally done by unionized employees. The transit union (Local 1385) claimed the RTA violated their employment contract by not giving written notice before outsourcing this work. The union took the dispute to an arbitrator (a neutral decision-maker), who sided with the workers. **What the Court Decided** The RTA tried to overturn the arbitrator's decision in court, but lost. A higher court upheld the arbitrator's ruling, confirming the RTA violated the collective bargaining agreement. The court ordered the RTA to pay $35,024 in back pay to affected workers. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects union members' job security. It means employers cannot simply hand off unionized jobs to outside contractors without notifying and negotiating with the union first. When companies skip this notice requirement, workers can demand compensation for lost wages. The decision shows courts will enforce what's written in employment contracts, even when employers challenge arbitration decisions.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union AFL CIO Local 1385 from the same court.

Similar Rulings

McDaniel
W.D. Ky.Apr 2025
Defendant Win
Kovacs
N.D. OhioJan 2024
Remanded
Saunders
Ohio Ct. App.Sep 2021

The trial court erred by entering summary judgment under Civ.R. 56 on appellant's claim of sex discrimination because the evidence did not eliminate any genuine issue of material fact regarding the comparability of three male co-workers who were allegedly treated more favorably by appellee, or regarding the validity of appellee's purportedly nondiscriminatory reasons for its comparatively less favorable treatment of appellant. Regarding appellant's claim of disability discrimination, however, the trial court did not err by entering judgment under Civ.R. 56. Appellant, who alleges that appellee terminated her employment because she was disabled, failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to her alleged inability to perform the essential functions of her position at the time of her termination. In addition, the trial court did not err by entering summary judgment on appellant's claim for retaliation, because appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to create any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the alleged causal connection between her engaging in protected activity and appellee's termination of her employment. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Mixed Result
Papp v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Ohio Ct. App.Jun 2026
Defendant Win
Yormick v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C.
Ohio Ct. App.May 2026
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.