In State ex rel. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health v. Nadel, 98 Ohio St.3d 405, 2003 Ohio 1632, 786 N.E.2d 49, Dr. Stewart M. Harris, Jr.'s employer, an institution operated by the Ohio Department of Mental Health ("ODMH"), terminated Dr. Harris after several female coworkers asserted sexual harassment allegations against him. Id. at P1. At the time of his termination, Dr. Harris was a member of a collective-bargaining unit. Id. Dr. Harris filed a grievance challenging his termination, and the matter ultimately was submitted to arbitration. Id. at P2. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the arbitrator denied Dr. Harris's grievance. Id. Claiming that the union failed to fairly and adequately represent him at the arbitration hearing, Dr. Harris filed an unfair-labor-practice charge against the union with the State Employment Relations Board ("SERB"). Id. at P3. SERB dismissed Dr. Harris's charge and denied a motion for reconsideration. Id. at P4. Rather than seeking relief in mandamus, Dr. Harris filed an application in the common pleas court to vacate the arbitration award under R.C. 2711.10. Id. at P5. ODMH moved to dismiss Dr. Harris's application, and Dr. Harris moved to amend his application. Id. at P6. The common pleas court denied ODMH's dismissal motion and "determined that Dr. Harris had standing to vacate the arbitration award because he had alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation." Id. at P8. ODMH then moved for summary judgment. Id. at P9. A magistrate of the common pleas court denied ODMH's motion for summary judgment, and this decision was later adopted by the common pleas court. Id. at P10. Thereafter, in an appellate proceeding, ODMH sought a writ of prohibition against the common pleas court judge and the court's magistrate. Id. at P11. The common pleas court judge and the court's magistrate moved to dismiss ODMH"s complaint in prohibition. Id. at P11. The appellate court denied the motion to dismiss and granted a writ of prohibition. Id. at P12. Upon the common pleas court's judge and its magistrate's appeal as of right, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard the matter. Id. at P13. In Nadel, the Supreme Court of Ohio ultimately concluded that the common pleas court judge and the court's magistrate "patently and unambiguously" lacked jurisdiction over Dr. Harris's claims, id. at P25, and that the court of appeals correctly granted a writ of prohibition. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court remarked that "the mere fact that Dr. Harris couched the allegations of his application and amended application in language comparable to that found in R.C. 2711.10 is insufficient to vest jurisdiction in the common pleas court." Id. at P21. "R.C. 4117.11(B)(6) specifies that it is an unfair labor practice for an employee organization to 'fail to fairly represent all public employees in a bargaining unit.'" Id. at P24.