A win for pro-union nurses in Flagstaff

The finding invalidates the results from a two-day vote in June and would have forced the medical center, known as FMC, to hold a new election in the fall, but an appeal of the ruling by FMC will delay a new election until next June.

In June, nurses opted against union representation for the second time in three years by a 242-211 vote.

FMC officials were quick to point to a long history of the NLRB siding with labor organizations and vowed to appeal.

"We are disappointed by the ruling, but not surprised based on the NLRB's history of rulings against employers," said Janet Dean, vice president of community relations at FMC. "Flagstaff Medical Center will appeal the Sept. 14 National Labor Relations Board decision related to the June representation election with the California Nurses Association."

Officials from the California Nurses Association, who helped organize the unionization efforts, vowed a new election would be held no later than next June, the earliest possible date for a new election.

David Glenn, with the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, said while the NLRB decision allows the labor board to schedule a new election, the appeal from FMC could postpone that date for years through bureaucratic maneuvering.

Glenn said the nurses are allowed to have an election every year, so a new election could be held next June.

The decision, issued by Charlotte Benford, a hearing officer from the National Labor Relations Board, found FMC President Bill Bradel and other hospital executives repeatedly intimidated nurses by suggesting annual merit increases would be frozen if the unionization effort was successful.

Bradel met with the entire FMC nursing staff in more than 40 one-hour meetings in the course of five days just prior to the union vote, with discussions centering on benefits for nurses.

In the 31-page finding, Benford states: "I find that the Employer, by telling employees there would be no wage adjustments during negotiations, threatened employees with the loss of annual merit increases and, thereby, engaged in objectionable conduct. I find that conduct was repeated at over 40 employee meetings and involved high-ranking employer officials. A threat of loss of benefits is serious misconduct. The threats made at employee meetings affected almost all employees."

The threat of the loss of merit raises was the core complaint from the nursing union, which contended that the statements swayed some nurses to vote against unionization.

While the charges of threatening nurses with "freezing" their wages was enough to overturn the election, Benford agreed with FMC on several other allegations. She exonerated FMC on charges that it harassed employees about their pro-union views, made statements that collective bargaining was impossible with the California Nurses Association, removed pro-union literature and interfered with the right of FMC nurses to self-organize.

Hospital executives contended that Bradel held the meetings to quash any rumors that had spread around the hospital.

"We do not believe we did anything wrong by telling our employees that our merit raise program would become a subject for bargaining if the union won the election," said Dean.

Pro-union nurses were thrilled with the NLRB ruling.

Diane Baker, a nurse at FMC, believes the meetings with Bradel were a thinly veiled attempt to coerce enough nurses to kill unionization efforts.

"The fact that these tactics actually affected the way nurses voted is confirmation and validation that we need the union, to prevent something like this from happening again," said Baker.

Baker, who said she thought FMC would initiate an appeal if they lost, saw some good come from the decision anyway.

"The NLRB decision is a major step toward initiating a culture here at FMC where integrity isn't some hollow part of a mission statement, but actually the basis and core of what we are about," she said.