Stanford Nurses' Strike: a Case Study of Negotiation, Mediation, And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2001 Stanford Nurses' Strike: A Case Study of Negotiation, Mediation, and Conciliation in a Health Care Labor Dispute Debra Gerardi UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Debra Gerardi, Stanford Nurses' Strike: A Case Study of Negotiation, Mediation, and Conciliation in a Health Care Labor Dispute, 3 J. Alt. Disp. Resol. 29 (2001). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1630 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. The Stanford nurses' strike: A case study of negotiation, mediation, and conciliation in a health care labor dispute By Debra Gerardi, R.N., M.RH.,J.D. Lhis article examines the roles negotia- tion of Nursing Achievement (CRONA) tion, mediation, and conciliation played walked out of Stanford University Hospi- in the Stanford University Hospital and tal and Packard Children's Hospital, be- Packard Children's Hospital nurses' strike ginning a 51-day nurses' strike. Mediated as seen through the eyes of the partici- negotiations had failed to produce a col- pants. The article includes interview re- lective bargaining agreement prior to the sponses from members of the negotiating walk-out. Ninety-six percent of the teams representing the nurses' union and CRONA membership had voted to strike, Stanford, as well as representatives of the and a strike notice had been given to union membership. The interviews do not Stanford administration ten days prior to represent a statistical sampling of the par- the walk-out. Stanford hospital adminis- ticipants and were designed to provide in- tration activated a plan for continuing sight into the ADR processes rather than patient care services by hiring over 500 the substantive issues of the dispute. In- replacement nurses from Denver-based terview responses are organized to reflect US Nursing Corporation and other tem- the pre-strike, strike, and post-strike porary staffing agencies. phases of the dispute. An analysis of the ADR processes' effectiveness and several Registered nurses at Stanford Univer- "take-home" lessons for other health care sity Hospital have been represented by organizations follow the interviews. CRONA since 1974. In 1991, nurses at Lucille Packard Children's Hospital, an affiliate of Stanford University Hospi- The strike tal, had also approved CRONA as their collective bargaining agent. I The col- Background. On June 7, 2000, 1730 lective bargaining agreement between members of the Committee for Recogni- Stanford and CRONA expired March 1, Ms. Gerardi isan assistant nurse manager in the medical/surgical intensive care unit at Stanford University Hospital. She did not participate in the negotiations between CRONA and Stanford but isinvolved in developing training and conciliation programs for the nursing staff. Ms.Gerardi also is a mediator and dispute consultant for health care organizations. For further information regarding this article, contact [email protected]. 29 The Stanford nurses' strike 2000. Shortly before this date, however, the longest work stoppage in Stanford a failed merger between Stanford Univer- University Hospital's history. sity Hospital/ Packard Children's Hospi- tal and the University of California San The interviews Francisco Medical Center required the parties to prepare for separation. There- Interviews were conducted with members fore, the contract was extended until of the union negotiation team, the Stanford June 1, 2000, to accommodate the negotiation team, and CRONA members. completion of the de-merger between the The union negotiation team included the medical centers. CRONA president, press secretary, and the union representative to the intensive care CRONA and Stanford initiated negotia- unit. "Union" indicates union team re- tions on April 1 1 th. The chief negotia- sponses to the interview questions. In- tors for Stanford were terviews with the the Hospital's Direc- Stanford negotiating tor of Labor and Em- team include inter- ployee Relations and vi ws reveal views with the vice- an experienced labor president for Patient attorney, contracted how the variouS pCare Services/Di- specifically for the rector of Nursing bargaining process, ticipaft! perceived and the Director of who was participat- nd issues. Human Resources. ing in collective bar- a "Stanford" indicates gaining with CRONA the Stanford team for the first time. responses. "Mem- The CRONA union bers" designates president served as the team leader for CRONA member responses to the inter- the union negotiation team and had been view questions. serving as union president for the past 12 years. All interviews were conducted following the re-entry process. The interviews re- Negotiation sessions began with direct veal how the various participants per- meetings between the two groups. The ceived the facts and issues.2 Contradictory pre-strike meetings were held on-site at responses indicate differences of opinion Stanford University Hospital. On May among the interviewees. The interviews 2 5 th, a labor mediator from the Federal are arranged to represent the pre-strike Mediation and Conciliation Service was phase, the strike phase, and the post-strike brought in to assist in moving negotiations (re-entry) phase of the dispute. forward. The federal mediator utilized caucuses and modified negotiation ses- sions to facilitate an agreement. The pre-strike phase The CRONA strike began four months af- Question One: Describe the relationship ter the dissolution of the failed merger between CRONA and Stanford prior to the between the medical centers. On July 2 7t, collective bargaining sessions. CRONA nurses approved by a narrow mar- gin (825 to 810) a package proposed by the Union: We had gone through a de-merger federal labor mediator. On August 2 nd, the and a lot of us could not understand how CRONA nurses returned to duty, ending Stanford could enter us into a situation like 30 Alternative Dispute Resolution in Employment that that was doomed, and to have to back Union: There was no movement on the out of it and the costs incurred made it very issues. It just felt different this time. The difficult for us to understand. The hospital hospital would not discuss the issues like stuck it to the nurses with the increase in in the past. There was no request for in- the medical benefit premiums that was sig- formation or rationales as to our posi- nificant. Also, during the contract, the hos- tions- just silence. The hospital viewed pital made unilateral changes to the staff our package as an impossible proposal. nurse criteria in response to the FLSA re- Nothing was negotiated. It felt like their quirements. This became a much bigger agenda was predetermined. It was our issue than it had to be if we had just been first time negotiating with this attorney able to address some of the small pieces of and his style felt very condescending. We it earlier. This was different from in the believed that the hospital was going to past. We have not been able to predict the teach us a lesson about who the boss is behavior of the institution for the past and push us out on strike. As we got couple of years and we were just flabber- closer and closer to the strike the hospi- gasted. The relationship was the same as tal response was "no, we're not interested, always. We rarely see administration and no, we don't want to discuss." most members do not know who the ad- ministrators are. In years past, they would Stanford: It felt like there was a greater make rounds on the units, and at least there intent for a strike from the beginning of was some visibility. Communication is negotiations. Early on it appeared that passed down from the administration, to there was no goal for settlement. Union the assistant directors of nursing, to the documents reflected that there was strike nurse managers, to the staff. talk for the past two years. There seemed to be a goal to strike-to make a statement Stanford: With each negotiation cycle about the state of health care in general. the process seems to have become more The negotiations felt different-they felt adversarial. This year was not different more adversarial than in years past. The from past years as far as the traditional union began with controversial positions bargaining process goes. It was our sense and presented a large list of demands. that at the unit level, there was a good The long list of issues was contrary to pre- relationship with the managers. There vious negotiations and there was no indi- was no indication of significant problems cation that there were this many unre- through increased grievances or in- solved issues going into negotiations. creased requests for meetings during the past year. Members: It seemed like no one was talking. We never got any information Members: There is no relationship. about the negotiations and it felt like There is no visibility or communication. nothing was moving. We should have We only know our immediate supervisor. monitored the union closer and let them I don't even know who my supervisor's know our bottom line ahead of time. We boss is. We do not really interact with the never thought that there would really be administration. The only feedback they a strike. We vote to strike with every ask for is the annual employee survey that negotiation and we always settle at the is conducted before contract negotiations. last minute-we thought that's what would happen this time. Question Two: Describe the pre-strike ne- gotiations.