Nurses Hit Union and Medical Center with Federal Charges for Violating Their Freedom

Published

Specializes in Cardiac Critical Care, Trauma, Neuro..

The California Nurses Association is again attempting to organize Western Medical Center Santa Ana, California apparently using the Tenet/CNA Neutrality Agreement that has already been deemed unlawful assistance to the union and in violation of employee rights by the NLRB.

The Neutrality Agreement gags our management and administration from discussing their views on unionizing or educating the Nursing staff on their employee rights. It also limits how nurses opposed to unionizing can have their voice be heard. The California Nurses Association is free to to say and promise whatever they want.

While the current owners of Western Medical Center were not party to the back door deal with Tenet and the CNA, they were stuck with successorship language in the CNA contract.

I have filed a class action suit against both the CNA and the administration of Western Medical Center hoping to have the contract ruled illegal. While this will not prevent the union from attempting to organize, it will allow a more level playing field if there is such a thing when dealing with a labor union.

See http://www.stopunions.com for more information and a link to the press release.

Sherwood

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I read about this online today. Interesting.

http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr_529.php

Santa Ana, CA (July 6, 2006) - A Western Medical Center nurse has filed class action unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against his employer and the California Nurses Association (CNA) union to stop an illegal scheme designed to push unwanted unionization on him and his fellow registered nurses.

Sherwood Cox filed the charges at the NLRB Region 21 office in Los Angeles, against the CNA union and Western Medical Center in Santa Ana with assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Cox's charges seek to protect the nurses' right to choose freely whether or not to unionize. The charges detail how CNA union officials illegally bargained with the nurses' employer over their wages and working conditions despite the fact that the nurses have not chosen to unionize". . . . . . . . . . .

Up Vote Up Vote ×

right to work=right to work for less.....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
right to work=right to work for less.....

AMEN!! It never ceases to amaze me how nurses just don't get it. The demise of unions in this country over the last ten or so years, has led to stagnant pay, outsourcing, pension plundering, and underfunding, and the out right assault on workers rights. THERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS!!

I stated on another thread, that an employee who truly thinks that they can speak for themselves, achieve what CNA has, with staffing rations, pay, benefits, workplace protection, fighting the "Barons" of political power (Arnie!), has delusions of grandeur. You cannot accomplish what experienced negotiators have, because you don't have the experience. Nurses also lack knowledge of Employment Law and Administrative Law, to be able to successfully advocate for themselves in an employment dispute.

Nurses will never achieve the control over our profession, until we organize and take over with our own power.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PACU, ED.

Hmmm, why can't the unions do all those good things without resorting to illegal tactics? Just trying to stay on topic here.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in mostly in the basement.

Perhaps $$$ has interfered with my morals.

With CNA I invest a little less than $1000 a year and make more than 100K as a brand new nurse. (Ok, $97,000 regularly scheduled 36 a week but currently on track for making more than $120,000 with minimal OT--it all depends how you schedule it--trust me I don't do much extra, I pretty much hate my job :)

I don't agree with all that CNA does and perhaps they are being a little shady in this particular case. But for me, there are far worse things happening in our country and world right now to get all riled up about. I'm happy with my ratios/work rules/fair compensation. I admire Sherwood and those others on this board that I have read be so passionately anti- union. More power to 'em. I always admire anyone willing to do this job for the horrendous and insulting wages many nurses receive. (Seriously, my co-workers in the south, god bless ya--I couldn't walk a mile in your shoes) But to not only do it but fight for it! You go, Sherwood!

I truly encourage all to fight for their right NOT to organize----meanwhile I'll be by the pool......

Up Vote Up Vote ×

This whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. They seem to be saying CNA is bargaining illegally but then they seem to be saying that CNA is out but they're trying to get back in with a new election where the opponents are somehow gagged. Which is it?

Sherwood is claiming his employer is unfairly gagged by contract language but then the other press release says he's suing his employer for illegal practicies. What does that mean?

Especially if the neutrality agreement was thrown out by the NLRB. Why not ignore it and just do what you want? It makes no sense.

I also don't see any links to the actual contract language and/or agreements to back up any of these claims. Also, one nurse (Sherwood) has filed a charge, not a bunch of "nurses."

All of these statements are about as clear as mud. Also, does anyone believe that union opponents won't be able to voice their opposition in one form or another? That's ridiculous.

Show me the actual documents and/or contract language that somehow prevents union opponents from expressing their opinion. I'd really like to read it. Otherwise, I don't see any real evidence here to back up these claims ... only press releases that make a bunch of wild accusations that don't make any sense.

:rolleyes:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Perhaps $$$ has interfered with my morals.

With CNA I invest a little less than $1000 a year and make more than 100K as a brand new nurse. (Ok, $97,000 regularly scheduled 36 a week but currently on track for making more than $120,000 with minimal OT--it all depends how you schedule it--trust me I don't do much extra, I pretty much hate my job :)

I don't agree with all that CNA does and perhaps they are being a little shady in this particular case. But for me, there are far worse things happening in our country and world right now to get all riled up about. I'm happy with my ratios/work rules/fair compensation. I admire Sherwood and those others on this board that I have read be so passionately anti- union. More power to 'em. I always admire anyone willing to do this job for the horrendous and insulting wages many nurses receive. (Seriously, my co-workers in the south, god bless ya--I couldn't walk a mile in your shoes) But to not only do it but fight for it! You go, Sherwood!

I truly encourage all to fight for their right NOT to organize----meanwhile I'll be by the pool......

Stupid is as stupid does. The Martyr Marys are still alive and well. Continue to fight for the right to be overworked and underpaid. I hope that they are refusing the raises that CNA has won for them. Go ahead and take your own five patients allowed by the staffing ratios, and another five patients, because, well, you know- the ratios were won by a union. Heavens to betsy! Probably would rather take the ten patients than only take the five that were won by the ratios. JMHO!

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PACU, ED.
This whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. They seem to be saying CNA is bargaining illegally but then they seem to be saying that CNA is out but they're trying to get back in with a new election where the opponents are somehow gagged. Which is it?

Sherwood is claiming his employer is unfairly gagged by contract language but then the other press release says he's suing his employer for illegal practicies. What does that mean?

Especially if the neutrality agreement was thrown out by the NLRB. Why not ignore it and just do what you want? It makes no sense.

I also don't see any links to the actual contract language and/or agreements to back up any of these claims. Also, one nurse (Sherwood) has filed a charge, not a bunch of "nurses."

All of these statements are about as clear as mud. Also, does anyone believe that union opponents won't be able to voice their opposition in one form or another? That's ridiculous.

Show me the actual documents and/or contract language that somehow prevents union opponents from expressing their opinion. I'd really like to read it. Otherwise, I don't see any real evidence here to back up these claims ... only press releases that make a bunch of wild accusations that don't make any sense.

:rolleyes:

You are correct that we usually only have newspaper reports to go by rather than the actual documents. Maybe Sherwood could put a copy of the document on his website. I don't know of that would violate any legal confidentiality. If it's part of a court filing I would think it's public domain.

It's funny how you find the same thing with Union/Anti-union that you often see with Democrat/Republican. There are lots of hard core that support/criticize no matter what. Independant thought and evaluation are not included.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in mostly in the basement.

It's funny how you find the same thing with Union/Anti-union that you often see with Democrat/Republican. There are lots of hard core that support/criticize no matter what. Independant thought and evaluation are not included.

Supporting a particular issue/political party/etc. does not preclude independent thought or evaluation. Ideally, It means that you HAVE thought out the issue. Agreed, too many do blindly follow someone else's lead, but please don't be so simplistic as to think that if one does not share your particular views than they have not examined the issue at hand and have simply drunk the Kool Aid so to speak.

Unions=not all good/bad

CNA=not all good/bad

My particular situation w/nursing and the CNA=priceless!

ok, actually, the price is 120k:smokin:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PACU, ED.

Miss Mab, I'm glad it's working out well for you. I'm in Arizona which has excellent wages and patient some patient ratios mandated without unions. I actually enjoyed your earlier post as you simply stated the facts of your situation without making broad attacks on others. I think that's very mature of you.

Anyway, there are a few pro/anti union threads on this site. I just think it's a shame that any thread about union activities tends to turn into a pro/con argument.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in mostly in the basement.

It wasn't at all my intention to hijack the thread into pro/against union. I am neither vehemently for/against much of anything--I'm more of a grey see-er:) I'll reiterate my strong support for Sherwood to pursue what he feels is in his best interest. I would also be curious to see the actual facts of the case rather than both sides' PR issues.

I would really love to see the end result of what Sherwood and others' claim to want--which is the ability to not join a union or pay dues and then negotiate for everything on their own behalf. (I do think in CA that that is somewhat disingenuous as CA has some mandated ratio benefits, OT, etc. that are already built in. Now if they had to start over from scratch--THAT would be something to see)

I'm not being facetious--I really do wanna see how that plays out. How do their pay and benefits work out? I am confused, though, because it would seem that that's what nurses all over the country who aren't unionized do everyday. How's it working for the majority of them?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion