Internatl. Assn. of Heat v. Quality Insulation, L-07-1374 (6-20-2008)
Internatl. Assn. of Heat v. Quality Insulation, L-07-1374 (6-20-2008)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} On July 6, 2007, appellee filed an "application to reduce arbitration award to judgment." Appellee sought an order from the trial court confirming that on January *Page 2 31, 2007, an arbitrator found that appellant had violated a collective bargaining agreement. On September 4, 2007, appellant filed an answer denying the binding effect of the arbitration proceeding. Appellant also filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment that it was not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement at issue.
{¶ 3} On September 10, 2007, appellee filed a motion to dismiss appellant's counterclaim. On October 11, 2007, the trial court granted appellee's "application to reduce arbitration award to judgment" and granted appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's counterclaim. Appellant now appeals setting forth the following assignments of error:
{¶ 4} "I. The trial court erred as a matter of law by finding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Quality Insulation's counterclaim for declaratory judgment because Quality Insulation had not filed a motion to modify, correct or vacate within the time prescribed by Ohio Revised Code
{¶ 5} "II. The trial court erred as a matter of law in confirming the arbitration award rendered against Quality Insulation, and in favor of Local 45, as the trial court record contains no admissible evidence that there was ever any binding arbitration agreement between the parties."
{¶ 6} In its first assignment of error, appellant contends that the court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant's counterclaim. *Page 3
{¶ 7} R.C.
{¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio in Galion v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. Mun. Emp., Ohio Council 8, AFL-CIO, Local 2243 (1995),
{¶ 9} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 10} Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is found not well-taken. As such, appellant's second assignment of error is moot.
{¶ 11} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App. R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Lucas County.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App. R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist. Loc. App. R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J., Arlene Singer, J., Thomas J. Osowik, J., Concur. *Page 1
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.