Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 4113
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4113.53 (2026)

Effect of collective bargaining agreement, confidentiality requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
June 29, 1988
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 406 - 117th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Section 4113.52 of the Revised Code does not diminish or impair the rights of a person under a collective bargaining agreement, or permit disclosures that would diminish or impair the rights of any person to the continued protection of confidentiality of communications if a statute or common law provides such protection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1997–2020 · leading case: Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 2× “10(A) with R.C. 4113.53 (R.C. 4117.10[A] requires the General Assembly to specify when any other provision prevails over that section’s general policy favoring resolution pursuant to an agreed-upon grievance procedure, while R.”
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St. 3d 134 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 3× “341 because that section comprehends parties subject to collective bargaining agreements, which generally provide grievance procedures as the exclusive remedy.”
Rasawehr v. Belcher (N.D. Ohio 2020). · cites it 2× “Because Rasawehr has not alleged facts to support the conclusion that he complied with the requirements for protection under O.R.C. § 4113.53(A)(1)(a), he has failed to state a claim for violation of the statute and Defendants are entitled to dismissal of this claim against them.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4113.53(A)(1)(a): 2 cases
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St. 3d 134 (Ohio 1997). “341 because that section comprehends parties subject to collective bargaining agreements, which generally provide grievance procedures as the exclusive remedy.”
Rasawehr v. Belcher (N.D. Ohio 2020). “Because Rasawehr has not alleged facts to support the conclusion that he complied with the requirements for protection under O.R.C. § 4113.53(A)(1)(a), he has failed to state a claim for violation of the statute and Defendants are entitled to dismissal of this claim against them.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.