California Nurses Association and SEIU Neutrality Agreement ruled Illegal by the NLRB

[Sherwood]

If you were left out of the loop, what did they do or propose that was so bad?

We were not asked if we even wanted union representation.We we not asked what if any union we would want to represent us. Were were not asked how much a a wage increase we wanted, we were not asked what type of a benefit package we wanted.

The CNA and SEIU met with Tenet Corporate, Tenet and the unions decided what was best for us and signed a contract TELLING us what we were going to get, who was going to give it to us and how we were going to get it.

Isn't the union supposed to negotiate for its members a wage and benefit package that is agreed upon by its members then voted on in a democratic election? Membership and dues is another matter. Dues at this time can be as high as $80.00 a month. Membership is optional but dues are not. The CNA and SEIU demand a union security clause that forces all in the bargaining unit to pay dues. Even those who choose not to be members must pay dues or risk TERMINATION. Many of us, myself included fully disagree with the politics of the CNA and SEIU. The CNA and Demoro endorsed Ralph Nader for President in 2000 and supports the Labor Party.

The CNA advertises that it has 60,000 members. How many of those members are just members because that is a condition of their employment?

[Sheri257]

We were not asked if we even wanted union representation.We we not asked what if any union we would want to represent us. Were were not asked how much a a wage increase we wanted, we were not asked what type of a benefit package we wanted.

The CNA and SEIU met with Tenet Corporate, Tenet and the unions decided what was best for us and signed a contract TELLING us what we were going to get, who was going to give it to us and how we were going to get it.

Isn't the union supposed to negotiate for its members a wage and benefit package that is agreed upon by its members then voted on in a democratic election? Membership and dues is another matter. Dues at this time can be as high as $80.00 a month. Membership is optional but dues are not. The CNA and SEIU demand a union security clause that forces all in the bargaining unit to pay dues. Even those who choose not to be members must pay dues or risk TERMINATION.

How can you say you weren't asked if you wanted union representation? These memos clearly state that the RN's did vote for CNA representation and, the new owners agreed to that when they bought the facility.

http://www.stopunions.com/images/flyers/pdf/Whittier2.pdf

http://www.stopunions.com/images/flyers/pdf/Neutrality%20Ruled%20Illeagle.pdf

Since RN's did vote for CNA, I don't see any lack of democracy here.

Then the NRLB general counsel tells the new owners they can throw out CNA's agreement with Tenet (despite the fact that they previously agreed to it) because the entire bargaining unit didn't vote for CNA. Well, I'm not sure why you would need the entire bargaining unit to vote for CNA since they represent RN's and SEIU represents the other members.

It's pretty obvious they're using a technicality here (if there even is one) to throw out the union with the help of the pro business Bush administration NLRB. No surprize really.

Although it's kinda funny that they claim Tenet provided "unlawful" assistance to CNA. Tenet and CNA have battled for years. It's hard to imagine that Tenet would go out of their way to do the union any favors.

And I don't see any mention of RN's not being able to vote on a new contract either. It doesn't even look like they got that far since the hospital got the NLRB to issue this opinion.

I think you're taking a few things out of context here.

[Nancy2]

Then the NRLB general counsel tells the new owners they can throw out CNA's agreement with Tenet (despite the fact that they previously agreed to it) because the entire bargaining unit didn't vote for CNA. Well, I'm not sure why you would need the entire bargaining unit to vote for CNA since they represent RN's and SEIU represents the other members.

And I don't see any mention of RN's not being able to vote on a new contract either. It doesn't even look like they got that far since the hospital got the NLRB to issue this opinion.

I think you're taking a few things out of context here.

First of all this ruling came about because of a Nurse. She filed objections to the peace accord because she felt it was wrong and illegal.

With this Tenet Peace Accord, the contract was pre-negotiated prior to the union elections being held.

The NLRB ruling states that in a neutrality agreement a majority of the bargaining unit must vote in favor of the union and not merely a majority of those who voted. In the case at Whittier the CNA received a majority vote of who showed up to vote, but not a true majority of the bargaining unit.

I hope this clears up your misconception of the ruling.

It did not say that all of the RNs had to vote for the union. In fact this is the same rule of voting for the deauthorization vote that Whittier had. The RNs filed a petition with the NLRB to vote to do away with forced dues and make it an open shop. Even though more RNs voted in favor of open shop than did not, the rules state that a majority of the bargaining unit has to vote in favor of this in order for it to be open.

I don't know why you insist on blaming the President for this. There is also a Clinton appointee on the board and she agreed with this decision. Sometimes legal is legal and right is right no matter what political affiliation you have.

[Sherwood]

How can you say you weren't asked if you wanted union representation? These memos clearly state that the RN's did vote for CNA representation and, the new owners agreed to that when they bought the facility.

http://www.stopunions.com/images/flyers/pdf/Whittier2.pdf

http://www.stopunions.com/images/flyers/pdf/Neutrality%20Ruled%20Illeagle.pdf

Since RN's did vote for CNA, I don't see any lack of democracy here.

Then the NRLB general counsel tells the new owners they can throw out the agreement (despite the fact that they previously agreed to it) because the entire bargaining unit didn't vote for CNA. Well, I'm not sure why you would need the entire bargaining unit to vote for CNA since they represent RN's and SEIU represents other healthcare workers.

It's pretty obvious they're using a technicality here (if there even is one) to throw out the union with the help of the pro business Bush administration NLRB. No surprize really.

Although it's kinda funny that they claim Tenet provided "unlawful" assistance to CNA. Tenet and CNA have battled for years. It's hard to imagine that Tenet would go out of their way to do the union any favors.

And I don't see any mention of RN's not being able to vote on a new contract either. It doesn't even look like they got that far since the hospital got the NLRB to issue this opinion.

It looks like you're taking a few things out of context here.

I have not taken anything out of context. I lived through this mess through its entirety.

The voting was forced upon us by the neutrality agreement. Without our invitiation, Tenet allowed the CNA and SEIU to enter the hospitals and preach their form of gospel. Some fell for it many did not. As I stated before, the union demanded and Tenet agreed to successor language carrying the illegal neutrality agreement over to the new owners if the hospital was sold. Yes the new owners knew it, much like you may know of flaws in a home or car when you buy it. You take it "as is" and deal with the "repairs" yourself.

The NLRB decision says that if the union won by a true majority of the bargaining unit then the vote stands. If the nurses lost to the CNA by less than a majority then the union is out as in the case at Whittier. Remember the rules in an election are that only a majority of those that show up to vote can decide the election.

The lawsuit we are discussing here was started by a Whittier Hospital RN way back when all this started. She charged as I have and the CNA did against the SEIU, that a private neutrality agreement between a union and an employer giving the union sweeping access to a facility in order to coerce it staff into choosing union representation is unlawful. It has taken all this time for a decision to be made.

My hospital beat the CNA, we decided that our voice as professional nurses was strong enough. We did not buy the union line that nurses are weak and need the big union to stand up and speak for us. When we beat the CNA they retaliated by filing multiple ULP's against the hospital in an attempt to force their way in despite us voting them out on their terms. I filed charges against the CNA, see http://www.stopunions.com/flyers.htm click on flyer 25 "charges filed against the CNA". The union dropped all charges allowing our win to stand. http://www.stopunions.com followed much of this from the beginning and is now being utilized by many others to educate themselves on the consequences of electing union representation.

for more see this http://lists.iww.org/pipermail/iww-news/2003-May/002131.html and see this too http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/07/b.html

The CNA only pressed their case that the deal was illegal until they got a deal of their own. Hypocrites.

Thanks for promoting one of my favorite websites http://www.stopunions.com I also like http://www.onevoice-ourvoice.com and http://www.notinourhouse.org

The voices of professional nurses are heard every moment of everyday. We stand up for our patients and ourselves without the need for union representation.

[Sheri257]

Since everybody keeps quoting the NLRB decision, can someone post a link because I can't find it on the NLRB website.

[Sherwood]

Since everybody keeps quoting the NLRB decision, can someone post a link because I can't find it on the NLRB website.

Check out http://www.stopunions.com/updates.htm You will find links to notices posted there.

You could also request the information by writing or calling the NLRB.

[Sheri257]

The NLRB ruling states that in a neutrality agreement a majority of the bargaining unit must vote in favor of the union and not merely a majority of those who voted. In the case at Whittier the CNA received a majority vote of who showed up to vote, but not a true majority of the bargaining unit. I hope this clears up your misconception of the ruling.

It did not say that all of the RNs had to vote for the union. In fact this is the same rule of voting for the deauthorization vote that Whittier had. The RNs filed a petition with the NLRB to vote to do away with forced dues and make it an open shop. Even though more RNs voted in favor of open shop than did not, the rules state that a majority of the bargaining unit has to vote in favor of this in order for it to be open.

I don't know why you insist on blaming the President for this. There is also a Clinton appointee on the board and she agreed with this decision. Sometimes legal is legal and right is right no matter what political affiliation you have.

Deauthorization vote? What deauthorization vote? The company memo doesn't mention any deauthorization vote.

The voting was forced upon us by the neutrality agreement. Without our invitiation, Tenet allowed the CNA and SEIU to enter the hospitals and preach their form of gospel. Some fell for it many did not. As I stated before, the union demanded and Tenet agreed to successor language carrying the illegal neutrality agreement over to the new owners if the hospital was sold. Yes the new owners knew it, much like you may know of flaws in a home or car when you buy it. You take it "as is" and deal with the "repairs" yourself.

The NLRB decision says that if the union won by a true majority of the bargaining unit then the vote stands. If the nurses lost to the CNA by less than a majority then the union is out as in the case at Whittier. Remember the rules in an election are that only a majority of those that show up to vote can decide the election.

The lawsuit we are discussing here was started by a Whittier Hospital RN way back when all this started. She charged as I have and the CNA did against the SEIU, that a private neutrality agreement between a union and an employer giving the union sweeping access to a facility in order to coerce it staff into choosing union representation is unlawful. It has taken all this time for a decision to be made.

Ok. This gets even more confusing here, which is why I wanted a copy of the actual NLRB decision but, those links don't provide it, unfortunately. Maybe it just hasn't been posted on the NLRB site yet.

To quote your post: "Remember the rules in an election are that only a majority of those that show up to vote can decide the election."

Well, that's what I thought. But at the same time you and Nancy are saying a true majority has to prevail, no matter who shows up? Well, doesn't make much sense unless you're saying different rules apply to this situation.

And, by the way, the majority of those who bother to vote is how our political system works. In most elections, the majority of people eligible to vote don't. Do we throw out political elections because a majority don't show up? No. The majority who does vote prevails. If the opponents didn't bother to show up and vote, isn't that a vote in and of itself?

If we're talking about democracy, there's not much of it with this decision if elections get thrown out just because people don't show up to vote.

And I still find it incredibly hard to believe that Tenet, of all people, would encourage union membership of any kind in their facilities. CNA has had major strikes at Tenet facilities and supposedly they let CNA waltz in, coerce people and do whatever they liked.

That is absurd. I have NEVER heard of any hospital, ever, encouraging union organization in their facility. And to say that Tenet did this in violation of law is totally implausible, especially in light of their antagonistic history with CNA. It would not be in their best interest.

Sorry ... but I just don't believe it. This is just the NLRB's excuse to help the hospital get rid of the union.

[Nancy2]

Deauthorization vote? What deauthorization vote? The company memo doesn't mention any deauthorization vote.

Ok. This gets even more confusing here, which is why I wanted a copy of the actual NLRB decision but, those links don't provide it, unfortunately. Maybe it just hasn't been posted on the NLRB site yet.

To quote your post: "Remember the rules in an election are that only a majority of those that show up to vote can decide the election."

Well, that's what I thought. But at the same time you and Nancy are saying a true majority has to prevail, no matter who shows up? Well, doesn't make much sense unless you're saying different rules apply to this situation.

And, by the way, the majority of those who bother to vote is how our political system works. In most elections, the majority of people eligible to vote don't. Do we throw out political elections because a majority don't show up? No. The majority who does vote prevails. If the opponents didn't bother to show up and vote, isn't that a vote in and of itself?

If we're talking about democracy, there's not much of it with this decision if elections get thrown out just because people don't show up to vote.

And I still find it incredibly hard to believe that Tenet, of all people, would encourage union membership of any kind in their facilities. CNA has had major strikes at Tenet facilities and supposedly they let CNA waltz in, coerce people and do whatever they liked.

That is absurd. I have NEVER heard of any hospital, ever, encouraging union organization in their facility. And to say that Tenet did this in violation of law is totally implausible, especially in light of their antagonistic history with CNA. It would not be in their best interest.

Sorry ... but I just don't believe it. This is just the NLRB's excuse to help the hospital get rid of the union.

You're right the rules are different for this neutrality agreement. The NLRB IN RESPONSE TO AN RN FILING AN OBJECTION CHARGE ruled that in a neutrality agreement election (which was not held by the NLRB but by another third party) the union must receive a majority of the bargaining unit and not just amajority of those who show. The objection was to the whole neutrality agreement. The nurse charged that it was illegal because managers were not allowed to answer questions, anti-union nurses were not allowed to hold meetings in conference rooms to discuss their views, etc... and the union was allowed these things. It may not make sense, but that is what happened. Tenet "caved" and agreed to these conditions because of all the media and political pressure the unions were instigating. It's amazing that Tenet has not been in the paper nearly as much after the "peace accord" as they were prior to the agreement. It makes tons of sense to me. They wanted to be able to conduct their business and buy and sell hospitals, the unions were making it hard for them to do that, so they signed.....

[Nancy2]

Deauthorization vote? What deauthorization vote? The company memo doesn't mention any deauthorization vote.

The deauthorization vote was afew months ago and a seperate issue. It was an NLRB vote, not like the union vote and it did not pass. You can find out all about deauthorization votes by visiting http://www.nrtw.org

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

from the google queen...

"nlrb + nurses + tenet neutrality agreement with seiu and cna"

these articles are helpful in understanding neutrality agreement issues:

chapter 5

[color=#6f6f6f]file format: pdf/adobe acrobat - view as html

... three unions--seiu, the california nurses association (cna), and the ...

broke the neutrality agreement and local 2 sued for enforcement. ...

www.iir.ucla.edu/scl/pdf03/scl2003ch5.pdf - [color=#6f6f6f]similar pages

[pdf]

chapter 7

[color=#6f6f6f]file format: pdf/adobe acrobat -

view as html

...

trict and the california

nurses

association (

cna

) led to an

...

workers, upset

with a national

seiu

trusteeship of their local, petitioned the

nlrb

...

www.iir.ucla.edu/scl/pdf03/scl2003ch7.pdf -

[color=#6f6f6f]similar pages

[

[color=#6f6f6f]more results from www.iir.ucla.edu

]

health lawyers weekly

... between tenet healthcare corp. and the california nurses association, ...

provisions of a neutrality agreement with seiu concerning the employer's ...

www.healthlawyers.org/hlw/issues/040319/print.cfm - 129k

scroll 2/3 down page to see info

"neutrality agreements pose significant labor law issues. in their various forms they may seek silence, cooperation, partnership and waiver of significant employer and employee rights. under such agreements, employees, caught in the middle, may not make informed decisions on unionism. because employees possess a right under section 7 of the national labor relations act (nlra or act) to refrain from union activity, an employer who formally agrees not to convey the downside of unionization to its employees could, arguably, be interfering with its employees' full exercise of their rights. further, a neutrality agreement, under some circumstances, could be deemed prohibited "unlawful assistance" to a union in violation of section 8(a)(2) of the nlra, since an employer who is construed to be soliciting employees to vote for a union could violate that proscription. another issue arises when the agreement is extended to newly-created or subsequently purchased facilities, and employees at those locations are deprived of the opportunity to exercise their own choice. also, because there are no confidentiality requirements attached to a card check verification process, issues arise as to whether that method would be inherently coercive to employees.

a major issue arises when unions propose and demand neutrality agreements during the collective bargaining process. is such a demand a "mandatory" or "permissive" subject of bargaining under the nlra? if the proposed neutrality agreement were deemed a mandatory subject of bargaining, the union could insist to impasse on the proposal and then lawfully strike over inclusion of the neutrality agreement in the new collective bargaining agreement. if neutrality agreements were deemed to be "permissive" subjects of bargaining, a union could not insist to impasse or strike over inclusion of the proposed agreement. this significant issue has yet to be decided by the nlrb. despite the existence of issues under federal labor law, it is clear that neutrality agreements constitute legally binding contracts that can be enforced against an employer in federal court. accordingly, some agreements require that both parties submit to arbitration any dispute that they may have under the provisions of the neutrality agreement. for example, if an employer who has signed a neutrality agreement later refuses to abide by the agreement by refusing to consent to a card check, the union would be able to obtain an arbitrator's order requiring the employer to verify the cards and recognize the union upon a showing of majority support. the courts and the nlrb will honor such orders.

the binding nature of a neutrality agreement was observed in 2003 in a case arising in the healthcare industry. in september, the ninth circuit, in service employees int'l union v. st. vincent med. ctr.6 ruled that st. vincent medical center in los angeles was required to arbitrate claims that it violated provisions of a neutrality agreement with seiu concerning the employer's conduct during an organizing campaign. st. vincent had agreed to be bound by a prior employer's 2001 agreement whereby the predecessor agreed to work with seiu, and both parties had agreed not to engage in personal attacks or derogatory comments concerning the respective organizations. it had also been agreed to allow employees to decide on union representation "free from coercion, intimidation, promises or threats." that agreement, succeeded to by st. vincent, required that the union and the employer communicate only factual statements and that there be no derogatory comments. the agreement allowed for an election to be conducted either by a mutually agreeable election officer, or the union could opt to petition for an nlrb-run election that followed the procedures set forth in the agreement. the seiu opted for an nlrb-run election among the st. vincent workers. the union lost the election in late 2001. it then challenged the election, alleging that the hospital had committed eighteen violations of the conduct rules set forth in the agreement. st. vincent then refused to arbitrate the dispute. seiu sued the employer in federal court seeking to compel arbitration over the union's allegations that the employer's pre-election conduct violated the agreement. the employer moved to dismiss, arguing that the dispute was purely "representational," that the nlrb had primary jurisdiction, and, therefore, an arbitrator could not consider the allegations. the court disagreed and found that the interpretation of the agreement was primarily contractual, rather than statutory, so that it was proper to bring suit to enforce the arbitration agreement. "

[Sherwood]

The CNA has quietly chosen to comply with the NLRB decision. Notices of this compliance are posted all over Whittier Hospital (a community hospital in Los Angeles County) that the CNA recognizes that they are no longer the bargaining agent for the nurses and that they will refund dues seized from nurses paychecks.

Normally when the CNA has an issue that they disagree with they take to the presses or the streets with picketers. The CNA is unusually quiet on this issue. Why? Is it because they are afraid that if the word gets out current Tenet and former Tenet nurses who were forced to pay dues to an organization they do not support or believe in will also seek to remove the CNA from their hospital as well and have their hard earned money returned to them with interest?

A copy of the notice of compliance can be seen on www.stopunions.com see the updates section regarding Whittier Hospital.

Educate, communicate and decide

[lee1]

"The often unreasonable wage and benefit packages the unions have demanded are one of the reasons our economy is having problems. Pension plans going bankrupt, companies unable to compete in the U.S. because of high wage and benefit packages negotiated years earlier."

This is a programmed response.

My father came from the generation that if you had a decent job it DID give you an insurance benefit and a pension benefit that he could live on along with his social security. We all have money taken from our salaries to help with these benefits. Was it his generation that is bankrupting us? NO, don't think so.

Maybe what should be looked at is the HUGE salariesbenefits/perks paid to CEOs/ top level executives at all of these companies versus the salaries/benefits paid to the ordinary worker. They only seem to care about the bottom line not the moral/ethical destruction of this country related to farming out all of the jobs to the cheapest laborer. Then you wonder also why noone has loyalty to anyone any more. Neither the company toward the worker------too busy trying to get bonuses on everyone's else back or the employee who can't trust if they are being stabbed in the back.