The moment workers decide to organize represents a critical juncture in labor relations. During this vulnerable period, employers often deploy tactics designed to influence, intimidate, or manipulate the outcome. Ohio law recognizes this danger and requires that all representation elections occur under "hygienic conditions," a standard that sounds clinical but carries profound implications for workers' fundamental rights.

Every union attorney knows the sinking feeling when SERB issues an unfavorable ruling. Whether dismissing an unfair labor practice charge, denying a representation petition, or ruling against the union on a procedural matter, these decisions can feel final and devastating. But Ohio law provides a critical opportunity to challenge SERB rulings through Motions for Reconsideration, a tool that remains underutilized and often misunderstood by union representatives.

When police officers, firefighters, and deputy sheriffs reach impasse in bargaining, conciliation becomes their path to resolution. Unlike private sector workers who can strike, these essential public employees must rely on a neutral conciliator to resolve contract disputes. But even after winning wage increases through conciliation, a critical question remains: when do those raises actually take effect, and can workers recover wages they should have received months earlier?

Union members facing disputes within their own organizations often want immediate relief from the State Employment Relations Board. However, Ohio law requires a crucial preliminary step that many overlook: exhausting all available internal union remedies before SERB will consider certain unfair labor practice charges. Understanding this requirement and navigating it properly can determine whether a member's complaint ever receives a hearing on its merits.

Union organizing campaigns represent a critical moment when workers exercise their fundamental rights under Ohio law. Yet during these pivotal times, employers often engage in subtle and not so subtle tactics designed to undermine organizing efforts. Understanding these illegal interference tactics and knowing how to respond can mean the difference between a successful campaign and a defeated workforce.

Experienced union attorneys who represent Ohio public sector unions regularly encounter situations where well-meaning employers stumble into unfair labor practice charges by making what they consider "minor" changes without bargaining. These unilateral changes can devastate workplace morale, undermine collective bargaining relationships, and most importantly, violate fundamental rights under Ohio law.

When defending union members facing discipline or discharge, one of the most fundamental questions we confront in arbitration is what standard of proof the employer must meet to justify their actions. This seemingly technical legal question can make the difference between a member keeping their job or losing their livelihood.

As someone who has spent decades representing Ohio's unions before the State Employment Relations Board, I find myself increasingly concerned about a disturbing trend revealed in SERB's own 2025 Annual Report. Of 203 unfair labor practice charges filed in fiscal year 2025, SERB found probable cause in only 8 cases. That represents a mere 3.9 percent probable cause finding rate, a statistic that should alarm every union member and labor advocate in Ohio.

As union-side labor attorneys, we regularly encounter cases where employers attempt to discipline or terminate employees for conduct that occurs entirely outside the workplace. These off-duty misconduct cases present unique challenges and opportunities for defense, requiring a thorough understanding of both legal standards and arbitral precedent.