IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 
BUTLER COUNTY 
MAGNODE CORPORATION, : 
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2005-02-050 
- vs - 
DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF : 
JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., 
Defendants-Appellants. 
 
CIVIL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CV2001-08-1817 

Frost Brown Todd LLC, Thomas A. Swope, Jennifer L. Fuller, 300 North Main Street, Suite 
200, Middletown, Ohio 45042, for plaintiff-appellee 
Jim Petro, Ohio Attorney General, Patrick MacQueeney, 1600 Carew Tower, 441 Vine Street, 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for defendant-appellant, Director, Ohio Department of Job & Family 
Services 

Kircher, Robinson & Welch, Peter M. Fox, 1014 Vine Street, Suite 2520, Cincinnati, Ohio 
45202-2994, for appellants, International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 
1312 and Claimants 

BRESSLER, J. 


{¶1} This matter is an administrative appeal in which defendant-appellant, the Ohio 
Department of Job & Family Services, et al. ("ODJFS"), appeals the decision of the Butler 
County Court of Common Pleas reversing the decision of the Ohio Unemployment 
Compensation Review Commission ("Review Commission") which previously granted 
unemployment benefits to former employees of plaintiff-appellee, Magnode Corporation 
("Magnode"). We affirm the lower court's decision. 

{¶2} This matter arises from a dispute between Magnode and 58 members 
("Claimants") of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 
1312 ("Union"). In December 2000, Magnode and the Union began negotiating a new 
collective bargaining agreement, as the current agreement was in effect only until February 
2001. When Magnode and the Union were unable to reach an agreement by the expiration of 
the collective bargaining agreement, the Union rejected Magnode's offer to continue work, 
and Claimants and other members of the Union began a strike. 

{¶3} Magnode continued operations with non-Union employees and a few temporary 
replacement workers. On March 22, 2001, Magnode verbally notified the Union that it would 
begin the process of hiring permanent placement workers to fill the positions vacated by the 
striking workers. On March 28, 2001, Magnode notified the Union in writing that it intended to 
hire permanent replacement workers if the Union failed to ratify Magnode's last proposed 
collective bargaining agreement. After the Union failed to ratify the proposal, Magnode began 
to hire employees to permanently replace the positions vacated by the striking members of 
the Union on April 2, 2001. 

{¶4} Between April 1, 2001 and April 14, 2001, the Claimants filed individual 
applications for unemployment benefits with ODJFS. On May 3, a hearing officer for the 
Review Commission found that the Claimants were unemployed due to a labor dispute other 
than a lockout which ended on April 2, 2001, when Magnode began hiring replacement 
workers. Accordingly, the Review Commission granted the claims of all 58 Claimants for 
unemployment benefits beginning on April 2, 2001. Magnode filed a request for further review 
of this decision, which ODJFS denied. Magnode appealed the Review Commission's decision 
to the Butler County Court of Common Pleas ("lower court"). 

{¶5} On October 18, 2002, the lower court found that, according to the evidence 
presented to the ODJFS hearing officer, "several Claimants voluntarily quit employment with 
Magnode, retired, took paid vacation, or quit striking and went back to work for Magnode 
between January 1, 2001 and June 1, 2001." The court held that employees who quit and 
those who voluntarily returned to work were not entitled to unemployment benefits, those who 
retired should have their unemployment benefits reduced by the amount of the retirement or 
pension allowances, and those who took paid vacation were not entitled to unemployment 
benefits during the period of their vacation. The court remanded the matter to the Review 
Commission to determine which Claimants are entitled to any unemployment benefits and 
which Claimants are entitled to reduced benefits. 

{¶6} Upon remand, the Review Commission determined that the period of the labor 
dispute began on February 26, 2001, and ended on April 2, 2001, when Magnode began 
hiring replacement workers. The Review Commission found that no claimants were paid any 
benefits during this period, and that all instances where benefits were erroneously paid to 
Claimants had been corrected. Magnode then filed a motion in the lower court for 
reconsideration of its prior decision and/or relief from the Review Commission's order. 

{¶7} After a hearing, the trial court reversed the Review Commission's order, finding 
that although Magonde began hiring replacement workers on April 2, 2001, positions were 
available for striking Claimants at least until the end of the strike in November 2001, and that 
Claimants were never notified in writing that their positions had been permanently filled by 
replacement workers. ODJFS appeals the lower court's decision, raising a single assignment 
of error. 

{¶8} In its assignment of error, ODJFS argues the lower court erred in reversing the 
Review Commission's decision, which held that Claimants were no longer employed due to a 
labor dispute other than a lockout as of April 2, 2001. ODJFS maintains Claimants are 
entitled to unemployment benefits pursuant to R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a) and Baugh v. United Tel. 
Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 419. Further, ODJFS claims that the Review Commission's 
decision was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, and 
should not have been reversed. We disagree. 

{¶9} The scope of our review of the Review Commission's decision is limited to that 
of the lower court's, which is a determination as to whether the Review Commission's decision 
was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. See R.C. 
4141.282(H); Tzangas, Plakas, & Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 73 Ohio St.3d 694, 
696-697, 1995-Ohio-206. 

{¶10} The purpose of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Act is "to provide 
financial assistance to an individual who had worked, was able and willing to work, but was 
temporarily without employment through no fault or agreement of his own." Irvine v. Unemp. 
Comp. Bd. of Review (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 17. However, R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a) provides 
that an individual is not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits where "[t]he 
individual's unemployment was due to a labor dispute other than a lockout * * * for so long as 
the individual's unemployment is due to such labor dispute." 

{¶11} In Baugh, 54 Ohio St.2d at 419-420, workers went on strike in January, and the 
employer notified the workers that they would begin hiring replacement workers in June. After 
hiring replacement workers, the company sent a second letter to the workers notifying them 
that their positions had been filled. Id. at 425. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the hiring of 
replacement workers terminated the striking workers' status as employees, and was the 
proximate cause of the strikers' unemployment, entitling them to unemployment 
compensation benefits. Id. 

{¶12} Recently, in M. Conley Co. v. Anderson, 108 Ohio St.3d 252, 2006-Ohio-792, 
¶21, the Court reaffirmed its holding in Baugh, and held, "the hiring of permanent replacement 
workers coupled with notice to striking workers that they have been replaced or that their 
positions have been permanently filled severs the employee relationship for purposes of R.C. 
4141.29(D)(1)(a) and removes the disqualification to receive unemployment compensation 
benefits." (Emphasis added.) However, the Court distinguished the cases of Baugh and M. 
Conley, where striking workers were given clear notification, in writing, that their jobs had 
been permanently replaced, from cases cited by the employer where no such notification was 
provided. Id. at ¶14. Specifically, the Court found that in Hi-State Beverage Co. v. Ohio Bur. 
of Emp. Servs. (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 633, and Moriarity v. Elyria United Methodist Home 
(1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 502, striking workers did not receive notice that the employer had 
permanently replaced them or that their positions had permanently been filled. Id. 

{¶13} After reviewing the record in this matter, we agree with the lower court's 
conclusion that the Review Commission's decision is unlawful, unreasonable, and against the 
manifest weight of the evidence. It is undisputed that the work stoppage began when the 
Union voted to begin an economic strike, which Claimants participated in beginning on 
February 26, 2001, and that this work stoppage was not caused by a lockout. The record 
indicates that Magnode began hiring replacement workers on April 2, 2001. However, there 
were positions available for striking workers from April 2, 2001 until the strike ended on 
November 1, 2001, and in fact, ten striking workers actually returned to work during this time. 
Therefore, Magnode did not sever the employment relationship with the striking workers by 
merely beginning to hire replacement workers. Morever, the lower court properly noted, "* * * 
unlike the employer in Baugh, [Magnode] never sent the striking employees a second letter 
informing them that their positions had been permanently replaced or that they no longer had 
a job." Accordingly, we find that Claimants were unemployed due to a labor dispute other 
than a lockout between February 26, 2001 and November 1, 2001, and were not entitled to 
receive unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a). 

{¶14} Judgment affirmed. 
POWELL, P.J., and YOUNG, J., concur.