Gibson 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, Robert Gibson—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. Gibson’s paychecks since opting out.

About Buckeye’s Clients

After coaching for several years, Robert Gibson was encouraged to serve at the Madison Plains junior and senior high schools in London, Ohio. He was happy to do so and now spends his days helping teachers supervise students, ensuring they complete missed assignments, and ensuring they get to their classrooms before and during the school day.

This is invaluable work, where, in Mr. Gibson’s words, he assists “teenagers as they struggle to find their place in society and grow into more responsible roles in the community.” Mr. Gibson enjoys greeting students and staff at the start of the day and seeing students get back on track after finding “themselves deep in a hole due to lengthy absences.”

When he started this job, he joined his local OAPSE chapter and even served as the local union secretary when no one else would. However, over time, his frustration and disagreement with the union’s political positions grew. So, Mr. Gibson started to research what he needed to do to quit the union. He learned that he needed to notify the union he was quitting during his opt-out window, which was “the ten day period before the end of the initial one-year term or any renewal year thereafter.” After performing some serious mathematical computations, Mr. Gibson figured out his opt-out window was August 5–15.

On August 15, 2025, within the union-dictated opt-out window, Mr. Gibson notified OAPSE that he was resigning from the union and instructed them to stop taking money out of his paycheck. Even though Mr. Gibson’s request was clearly within his opt-out window, the union sent him a form letter acknowledging he was no longer a member of the union, but rejecting his “request to have dues deduction authorization cancelled” because it did “not satisfy the requirements set forth on the membership application [he] signed.”

Facts of the Case

Current Status
Challenge filed with Ohio’s State Employment Relations Board

Originally Filed
April 9, 2026

Client
Robert Gibson

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. Gibson 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. Gibson’s employer to violate those same rights by instructing the employer to continue dues deductions.

Timeline of the Case

April 9, 2026
The Buckeye Institute files its challenge on behalf of Mr. Gibson with the State Employment Relations Board.

Statement of Facts