The Ohio State Employment Relations Board issued its ruling in In re City of Youngstown, a decision rendered in December by Chair W. Craig Zimpher, Vice Chair Sandra Drabik Collins, and Board Member Robert Walter, though it only recently appeared on Westlaw.
- The City breached RC 4117.11(A)(1) when the Fire Chief shouted at individuals, made physically threatening gestures, uttered racially tinged insults (notably “punk ass white boys”), and accused the Union President and Vice President of racism after they sought information and pressed to bargain over the consequences of offering an EMT class to members of the bargaining unit, thereby restraining and coercing the exercise of rights protected by law.
- The City violated RC 4117.11(A)(1) by the Mayor publicly branding two Union leaders as racist for engaging in lawful actions, a likely cause of reputational harm and a restraint on their ongoing protected activity.
- The City violated RC 4117.11(A)(3) when the Mayor endorsed the Fire Chief’s conduct and echoed his views in the media. This more likely than not resulted in a negative portrayal of Captains by at least one member of the public and one Union member, forcing each official to defend his reputation merely for performing duties as Union officers. The reputational harm amounted to a change in the terms and conditions of employment for the Union President and Vice President because the Mayor’s conduct damaged their protected right to maintain a good standing.
The applicable statutory provisions, drawn from Ohio Rev. Code 4117.11, state:
(A) It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer, its agents, or representatives to:
(1) Interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code or an employee organization in the selection of its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances; …
(3) Discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment on the basis of the exercise of rights guaranteed by Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code….
The Board adopted the proposed order from Administrative Law Judge Raymond Geis, which concluded in part as follows:
The respondent sent an email to all staff announcing that an emergency medical technician “EMT” class would be offered to all firefighters. No prior information about the class was shared with the Union before the broad announcement. Enrollment in the class was voluntary. Subsequently, then-Union President Racco and Vice President (“VP”) Thomas asked for a meeting to discuss the EMT class and to consider how it might affect the firefighters’ terms and conditions of employment. At a September 6, 2024 meeting, the Union insisted on bargaining the effects of the EMT class, including, amongst other items, scheduling/registration, pay for attendance, and pay for members substituting for attendees in their usual assignments.
In reply, the respondent’s agent, Chief Finley, described the Union Leaders as ‘punk ass white boys’ and ‘little white bitches,’ declared that he was ‘tired of you white boys,’ accused the Union Leaders of seeking negotiations solely because Finley was Black, and labeled the Union Leaders as racist; he further stated, ‘I am so tired of you white boys constantly coming after me for no reason and it just never stops,’ and, after VP Thomas asserted he was not racist, added, ‘[y]ou know who always says that, a racist.’
Chief Finley went on to say that there was no obligation to bargain anything related to the EMT class since participation was voluntary. He shouted his remarks and stood up across the table in a way that reasonably conveyed an assault risk. It required two deputy city lawyers to remove the Chief from the room. This demonstrates that he lost emotional self-control without lawful provocation during a legitimate bargaining session.
The Mayor ratified Chief Finley’s conduct by speaking to a reporter from The Vindicator and, in the ensuing article, portraying the union leaders as disrespectful toward him as the “African-American fire chief” and remarking that “there’s some racial issues there,” implicitly suggesting the white union officials did not recognize their own racism toward him….
Neither Racco nor Jordan sought reelection as Union officers largely due to the reasonably perceived reputational harm stemming from media coverage of the dispute, amplified by the Mayor’s remarks. The Mayor’s comments to The Vindicator effectively excused Chief Finley’s actions during the bargaining meeting and wrongly branded the Union as racially biased for pursuing relevant information and demanding to bargain—despite those acts being lawful exercised rights under RC 4117.
The record unequivocally shows that the Chief’s conduct dominated the meeting, derailing prospects for information sharing and potential agreement. Chief Finley’s statements, in isolation, were inherently coercive and reasonably calculated to impede collective bargaining and the exercise of its rights.
The Mayor’s public endorsement of Chief Finley’s conduct and his assertion that the union leaders were racist targeted Racco and Thomas specifically because of their status as Union officers. But for their roles as representatives asserting protected rights on behalf of those they serve, their reputations would not have been tarnished by Chief Finley or by the Mayor. Their terms and conditions of employment experienced a unique harm because their lawful right to preserve their reputation was infringed, while other employees did not endure a comparable diminishment.
As a result, Racco and Thomas reasonably perceived harm to their reputation, which led them to refrain from seeking reelection as Union officers. The current Union president testified credibly about difficulties in recruiting members to the executive board due to perceptions formed by how Racco and Thomas were treated.
The chilling effect on the recruitment and involvement of bargaining-unit members in Union leadership was a foreseeable outcome of the mayor’s public endorsement of Chief Finley’s stance and conduct in response to the Union’s assertion of protected rights. The Mayor and Finley committed per se violations of RC 4117.11 by effectively alleging that the Union and its leaders were racist for seeking information and pressing to bargain, despite the fact that RC Chapter 4117 protects the rights of public employees (or employers) irrespective of race—period….
And the Board directed the City to, among other measures,
Refrain from yelling at union officers, avoid physically threatening gestures toward union representatives, refrain from racially charged insults toward union officers, and stop accusing union officers of racism during meetings and communications that arise from the obligation to bargain in good faith ….
While I question whether this aligns with labor-law doctrine or with the Mayor’s First Amendment rights as an elected official to voice opinions (see Bond v. Floyd (1966)), it seems worth noting; for a discussion on a somewhat related matter, see Did Elected Officials Violate First Amendment by Orchestrating Public Criticism of (and Racism Allegations Against) Their Critic?
For additional details, consult The Vindicator (David Skolnick).
