The Licking County Court of Common Pleas recently issued a decision that will impact the issue of health insurance in collective bargaining for Counties. The case, involving the Licking County Sheriff’s Office and the Teamsters, addressed the interpretation of O.R.C. §305.171(A). The Court granted the County’s motion to vacate the Conciliator’s award with respect to health insurance. The Court specifically found that the Conciliator exceeded his authority by awarding a health insurance plan that was not acceptable to the Commissioners. Licking County Sheriff’s Office v. Teamsters local Union No. 284, Case no. 08-cv-01461 (Licking County, 11/17/08).

During negotiations for a successor agreement, the Licking County Sheriff’s Office and the Teamsters found the issue of health insurance to be a difficult hurdle. While this fact is not surprising, what made this case significant is that the Teamsters proposed to replace the County insurance for bargaining unit employees with the Teamsters own health insurance plan. Throughout negotiations, the Employer informed the Union that the Licking County Commissioners were opposed to this plan and, pursuant to O.R.C. section 305.171(A), it could not agree to the Teamsters’ proposal. Ohio Revised Code §305.171(A) provides that a board of county commissioners may purchase health insurance for county employees. Other county appointing authorities, such as the Sheriff’s Office, do not have such authority. Rather, other county offices and departments are dependent on the Commissioners for health insurance.

The negotiations proceeded to conciliation and the Conciliator awarded the Teamsters’ health insurance plan over the objections of the County Commissioners and the Sheriff. The Employer filed a motion to vacate in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. The Employer argued that the Conciliator exceeded his authority by awarding the Union’s health insurance plan over the objections of the Commissioners and the Sheriff’s Office and in violation of O.R.C. §305.171(A).

The Court granted the Employer’s motion holding that it is not within the authority of the Licking County Sheriff’s Office to purchase a health insurance policy since O.R.C. §305.171(A) reserves this right to the Commissioners. By requiring the Sheriff’s Office to provide an insurance plan not authorized by the Commissioners, the Conciliator exceeded his authority.

There are several important lessons to take from this case. First, conciliation decisions are subject to review by a court. While the appeal rights are limited, a court is required to vacate a conciliator’s award if he exceeds his authority.

Second, according to the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, the language in Chapter 4117 must be read in conjunction with O.R.C. § 305.171(A). The mere fact that parties are negotiating a collective bargaining agreement does not mean that other statutes are inapplicable in the negotiation process. This decision should not be interpreted as placing all aspects of health insurance off limits to a conciliator. Issues such as premium contribution, the authority to modify benefits during an agreement and even the level of benefits are still mandatory subjects of negotiations. This case merely prohibited the Conciliator from awarding a certain health insurance plan not approved by the Commissioners.

Third, an employer must raise objections and procedural issues early in the process. If the employer believes that a particular issue is a permissive subject of bargaining, it should make its belief clear to the union. If the employer believes the conciliator does not have the authority to issue an award on an issue, it should make its objections known to the union and the conciliator. Failure to do so could result in a waiver of the argument.

The Union has filed an appeal of this decision in the Court of Appeals so we are likely to get more guidance on this issue.