[Cite as Portage Cty. Educators Assn. for Dev. Disabilities – Unit B, OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 2020-Ohio-7004.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO PORTAGE COUNTY EDUCATORS : OPINION ASSOCIATION FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES – UNIT B, OEA/NEA, : CASE NO. 2019-P-0055 Appellant, : – vs – : STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS : BOARD, et al., : Appellees. Civil Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. 2018 CV 00408. Judgment: Reversed; remanded. Ira J. Mirkin, Richard T. Bush, and Stanley J. Okusewsky, Green, Haines, Sgambati Co., LPA, 100 Federal Plaza East, Suite 800, P.O. Box 849, Youngstown, OH 44501 (For Appellant). Ronald J. Habowski, 1931 Basswood Drive, Kent, OH 44240 (For Appellee Portage County Board of Developmental Disabilities). Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215; and Lisa A. Reid, Assistant Attorney General, 615 West Superior Avenue, 11th Floor, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Appellee State Employment Relations Board). TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J. ¶1 This appeal stems from a labor relations dispute between the Portage County Educators Association for Developmental Disabilities–Unit B, OEA/NEA (“the Association”) and the Portage County Board of Developmental Disabilities (“the Board”), during which members of the Association picketed outside the private residences of six Board members and outside the place of private employment of one Board member. The State Employment Relations Board determined the Association committed an unfair labor practice. At issue on appeal is whether the statute upon which that determination was based is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. The lower court affirmed its constitutionality. Based on our decision that the statute is content-based, not necessary to serve a compelling state interest, and not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests by the least restrictive means, we reverse the decision of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas and remand the matter for further proceedings. Factual and Procedural History ¶2 The Board and the Association were parties to a collective bargaining agreement effective from September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2016 (“the Agreement”). The Agreement contained a grievance procedure that culminated in final and binding arbitration. On September 28, 2016, the parties began negotiations for a successor agreement. They entered into mediation on March 30, 2017. ¶3 On September 15, 2017, the State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”) received from the Association a Notice of Intent to Strike or Picket. On October 4, 2017, the Board declared an impasse in negotiations pursuant to the parties’ Agreement. The Association went on strike that same day. The strike concluded on November 27, 2017, and the parties entered into a successor agreement on November 28, 2017. ¶4 During the strike, members of the Association engaged in picketing related to the successor contract negotiations, a labor relations dispute, on nine separate days 2 during the month of October 2017. The picketing took place on public sidewalks and/or public streets outside of, in front of, or across the street from the residences of six Board members, …

Original document