|
Groves v. OAPSE |
For media inquiries, please contact:
Lisa Gates, vice president of communications
(614) 224-3255 or Lisa@BuckeyeInstitute.org
Background on the Case
Key Questions in the Case: Is it an unfair labor practice when a union continues to collect dues from workers who have quit the union during the union-dictated opt-out window?
On June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, holding that public employees cannot be forced to support political speech or other activities without their affirmative consent. This opinion reinforced the law regarding public employees’ rights to avoid compelled payments to the unions chosen to represent them.
Despite the historic court decision, many government unions have refused to recognize workers’—in this case, Anthony Groves’s—Janus rights and have continued to take money from public employees’ paychecks—employees whom the unions themselves have acknowledged have quit the union and are, therefore, no longer union members.
In this case, The Buckeye Institute is asking the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) to declare that the Ohio Association of Public School Employees’ (OAPSE) union wage theft is an unfair labor practice and order OAPSE to return all of the money taken from Mr. Groves’s paychecks since opting out.
About Buckeye’s Client
As a driver for Triad Local Schools, Anthony Groves makes sure special needs students get to specialized area programs and back home safely. He also has the often-thankless task of monitoring the middle school lunchroom and serves as the head football coach of the Triad Middle School Cardinals.
Of his work, Mr. Groves says he has “an opportunity to make a difference every day.” What more can one ask for? Unfortunately, his interactions with OAPSE have not provided a similarly positive experience. So, in June 2024, Mr. Groves made his first attempt to quit the government union. OAPSE denied his request.
After asking the union’s local officers for guidance, Mr. Groves learned in February 2025 that he could only stop the dues deductions and quit the union by opting out during “the ten day period before the end of the initial one-year term or any renewal year thereafter.”
For Mr. Groves, who joined OAPSE on January 23, 2024—the date listed on the original union deduction card—his opt-out window was January 13–22. At that point, OAPSE sent him a copy of the dues check-off authorization card that he had signed on January 23, 2024, but someone other than Mr. Groves had written across the top “New 1/31/24,” supposedly making Mr. Groves’s opt-out window January 21–30.
Relying on OAPSE’s representation of the correct opt-out window, Mr. Groves submitted his resignation letter via certified mail to OAPSE on January 21, 2026—squarely within the ten-day opt-out window, whether his membership started on January 23 or January 31.
Despite following OAPSE’s own rules, on February 9, 2026, Mr. Groves received a letter from the union stating that while he is no longer a member of the union, he is still required to pay union dues because his “request to have dues deduction authorization canceled does not satisfy the requirements set forth on the membership application [he] signed.”
After receiving OAPSE’s denial letter, Mr. Groves contacted the OAPSE field representative, Tony Giuliano, who told Mr. Groves that his request was untimely, that, in fact, his membership did start on January 23, 2024, and since OAPSE didn’t receive his certified letter until January 27, 2026, Mr. Groves’s request was outside of his opt-out window.
Given Mr. Groves failed to jump through all of OAPSE’s hoops correctly—even though he followed the instructions union officials gave him—the union instructed Triad Local Schools to continue deducting dues from Mr. Groves’s paycheck, even while it acknowledged he is no longer a member of the union.
Facts of the Case
Current Status
Challenge filed with Ohio’s State Employment Relations Board
Originally Filed
April 16, 2026
Client
Anthony Groves
Lawyers
Jay R. Carson, senior litigator, The Buckeye Institute
David C. Tryon, director of litigation, The Buckeye Institute
Alex M. Certo, senior associate legal fellow, The Buckeye Institute
J. Simon Peter Mizner, legal fellow, The Buckeye Institute
Claims in the Case
Refusing to honor a union member’s opt-out request when the prescribed union procedure is followed is an unfair labor practice. The union’s conduct violated Revised Code Section 4117.11(B)(1) when it restrained Mr. Groves from exercising his right under R.C. 4117.03(A)(1) to “refrain from. . . assisting. . . any employee organization. . .” by taking his money after his opt out. The union’s conduct also violated Revised Code Section 4117.11(B)(2) when it attempted to cause Mr. Groves’s employer to violate those same rights by instructing the employer to continue dues deductions.
Related Cases
Chandler v. OAPSE
DuPuis v. AFSCME
Gibson v. OAPSE
Queen v. NEA
Sheldon v. OAPSE
Swanner v. OAPSE
Vanderveer v. OAPSE
Timeline of the Case
April 16, 2026
The Buckeye Institute files its challenge on behalf of Mr. Groves with the State Employment Relations Board.
