[brian]

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. A hearing officer for the National Labor Relations Board has thrown out the results of a union vote at Flagstaff Medical Center.

Her ruling says the hospital's president repeatedly threatened nurses by saying they would not get raises or merit pay if they voted the union in. She called the tactics by President Bill Bradel "serious misconduct."

Nurses decided against joining the union by a vote of 242 to 211 in June.

Full Story: http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=5429156

[mobileRN]

Amazing and heartening considering how anti-union the NLRB has been recently.

[Sheri257]

Originally Posted by mobileRN

Amazing and heartening considering how anti-union the NLRB has been recently.

Yeah ... no kidding. I'm shocked, actually, that they would rule in favor of the union.

Although the key here is whether this decision will be upheld on appeal. There have been similar cases where CNA has prevailed at lower staff levels but, if the case is appealed to the Bush appointed higher ups at the NLRB then ... it can be a different story.

[CoolhandHutch]

Amazing and heartening considering how anti-union the NLRB has been recently.

I don't think you understand- the NLRB threw out a "no vote" against the union, reasoning that the hospital president unfairly influenced the outcomes of the vote. It's not anti-union, it's a clear message to hospital administration that trying to disrupt the unionization of nurses, no matter how subtle, will not be tolerated. I'm sure some allnurses.com reader can better define the time frame, but it is my understanding that if the nurses (or anybody) votes down a union, there is a "cooling off" period in which another vote to join cannot happen within a certain time period- I want to think it could be a few years. Bottom line, the NLRB did the nurses a favor by exposing the hospital administrator and giving them a chance to have another (hopefully unbiased) election in the near future.

[weirdRN]

What makes you say the vote will be unbiased then? If the administrator has already said these things will that not continue to influence the nruses' votes?

[pickledpepperRN]

Flagstaff nurses get second chance to vote for union

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. The National Labor Relations Board has upheld a ruling that says intimidation of nurses in the run-up to a union vote at Flagstaff Medical Center was serious enough to invalidate the vote rejecting the union.

The hearing officer, Charlotte Benford, wrote that the executives warned employees at more than 40 meetings about wage freezes if they voted in the union and that the threats affected nearly all employees and constituted "serious misconduct."…

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT


Another article - http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable

[caliotter3]

We had a unionization attempt at one of my employers and there were disruptive attempts on the part of the union prior to the election. The people responsible for this bothered patients as well as employees. I was surprised at how above board the employer played this. No threats, just facts.

[pickledpepperRN]

Management and union employees have no reason to talk about an upcoming election in patient care areas. I hope it was not caregivers, licensed or not.


From another site:

Hospital Wages Unfair Antiunion Campaign: Flagstaff Medical Center nurses lose union vote by small margin
Nurses take unfair labor practice issues to the National Labor Relations Board


http://www.saznc.homestead.com/

[HM2Viking]

See http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/...efca/about.cfm for information about the Employer Free Choice Act.....

[Wile E Coyote]

Being an AZ nurse, I followed that one closely and was a little surprised at the 'no' vote. Again, I'm reminded just how little I should be surprised at the tactics used to keep a stockholder happy and the patient at risk.