Labor Board Rejects Appeal by Northern Berkshire Healthcare

By Tammy DanielsiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — Northern Berkshire Healthcare's appeal on criteria for potential union members was summarily rejected last week.

The health system had argued to the National Labor Relation Board's Region 1 that nurses and certain certified nursing assistants at Sweet Brook Care Centers had supervisory duties and thus should not be eligible to vote on a proposed bargaining unit.

In a 19-page decision, the regional board reviewed and rejected Northern Berkshire Healthcare's position. NBH then appealed to the labor board's executive office.

At issue was whether registered and licensed practical nurses at the nursing facility had authority over nursing assistants and other staff. NBH officials said they did, which would prevent them from voting on whether to organize a local bargaining unit of 1199 Service Employees International Union.

But in a one-sentence response last Thursday, Chairwoman Wilma B. Liebman and member Peter C. Schaumber declined to even review the appeal.

"Employer's request for review of the regional director's decision and direction of election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review."

"We are disappointed that the NLRB did not agree with us, because previous court decisions support our position," wrote Dianne Cutillo, vice president of external affairs at Northern Berkshire Healthcare in an e-mail Friday. "In the Health Care & Retirement Corp. and Kentucky River cases, the U.S. Supreme Court established the supervisory status of nurses under whose direction CNAs perform their work."

Officials had cited the court cases in their reasoning before the regional board.


Reached Monday, 1199SEIU spokesman Jeff Hall said the national board had echoed what the regional board had determined.

"From the outset, this attempt by NBH executives to deny indefinitely workers their right to vote has been incredibly misguided and has been an epic waste of patient care funding," he said. 

SEIU and workers at Sweet Brook have complained the health care system is wasting time and money and using intimidation tactics to obstruct a unionizing vote. Health care officials say they are only trying to ensure all workers have a clear understanding of what a vote will mean.

SEIU, which also covers employees including LPNs at North Adams Regional Hospital, filed a number of complaints last month over NBH's actions and requested the postponement of the March 26 union vote. Hall said the election would not move forward until the National Labor Relations Board resolved the complaints.

The National Labor Relations Board would set and oversee the election.
 
Cutillo wrote Friday that Northern Berkshire Healthcare had not yet been contacted about the complaints.

"We continue to support a free, fair, and secret ballot election," she wrote. "We look forward to completing the election process when set by the NLRB."
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

AG Clears Williamstown Select Board in Open Meeting Complaint

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Attorney General's Office on Wednesday cleared the Select Board in an Open Meeting Law complaint filed by iBerkshires.com while simultaneously confirming the supposition at the heart of the complaint.
 
The AGO found that the board did technically violate the OML when it moved to executive session on May 11, a misstep the board previously acknowledged in its response to the complaint.
 
The meeting in question was held behind closed doors to discuss the town's response to a proposal from Williams College to acquire the former town garage site at 59 Water St.
 
At the time of the May 11 meeting, the board had held no public discussion, let alone a vote, on whether to enter into negotiations with Williams, the lone respondent to a request for proposals issued by the town for the 1.27-acre parcel.
 
The board cited an exception to the Open Meeting Law that states executive sessions are appropriate if, "holding the discussion in open session may have a detrimental effect on the Board's negotiating position."
 
iBerkshires.com maintained in its complaint that the executive session was premature given the fact that the board on May 11 had no one to negotiate with as it had not agreed — publicly — to negotiate with the college.
 
The news organization cited the fact that the town's RFP clearly indicated a multi-step process in which the board first would decide whether to engage with any of the respondents (assuming multiple bids were made) and then enter into negotiation with one of the respondents.
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories