Opinion
No. 91-486
Submitted January 7, 1992 —
Decided March 11, 1992.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 59910.
Harvey J. McGowan, appellant, is a lieutenant in the security police of the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority ("CMHA"), appellee. This is a nonunion, supervisory position.
On February 1, 1989, other supervisors received a merit increase; however, McGowan did not. McGowan filed a grievance apparently so he could review merit-increase criteria before CMHA placed its evaluation of him in his file. He ultimately succeeded in obtaining these criteria after he filed a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Then he filed this separate mandamus action with that court to order CMHA to increase his salary by seven percent according to the adjustments he made to his evaluation. The court denied the writ because he had an adequate remedy at law by filing a grievance over the salary increase issue.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Harvey J. McGowan, pro se. James J. VanBergen, for appellee.
Following an established grievance procedure is an adequate remedy at law which will cause denial of the writ of mandamus. State, ex rel. Internatl. Union of Operating Engineers, v. Simmons (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 247, 249-250, 569 N.E.2d 886, 888. McGowan could have filed a grievance under CMHA's Administrative Order 11.18, which provides:
"Any employee may call to CMHA's attention actions by CMHA or its employees affecting him/her by way of the Grievance Procedure. Specific grievance procedures outlined in this Administrative Order apply to non-bargaining unit employees only. Bargaining unit employees are covered by the collective bargaining agreements between their union and CMHA. * * *"
Consequently, McGowan is not entitled to a writ of mandamus, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.