image description

Judge Denies BMC's Request To Halt Strike

By Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — A federal judge has denied Berkshire Medical Center's request for a temporary injunction to halt the one-day strike planned Tuesday by the nursing union.
 
The hospital had filed an emergency motion requesting the federal courts to put a stop to the strike. The hospital alleged that the Massachusetts Nurses Association did not follow the proper grievance process as outlined in the contract. It asked for a temporary injunction.
 
On Friday, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni denied that emergency request after a hearing in U.S. District Court in Springfield. The nurses plan to go ahead with the one-day strike on Tuesday.
 
"We are disappointed that it appears there will be a strike on Tuesday," said John Rogers, vice president and general counsel for the hospital. "A strike doesn't serve anybody's best interest, not the hospital's, not the nurses', and not the communities'. We did what we could do to avoid a strike."
 
Massachusetts Nurses Association spokesman Joe Markman said he isn't surprised by the ruling, saying the hospital's request was "baseless."
 
"The hospital is trying to distract from the issues at hand," he said, adding that the nurses are "ready to strike Tuesday morning if necessary."
 
Markman is still calling on the administration to return to the bargaining table and settle a contract before Tuesday. On Monday, Oct. 2, from 6 to 8 p.m. the nurses are planning on a vigil outside of Berkshire Medical Center on North Street. The following morning at 7,  the nurses plan to take to the picket lines. The one-day strike is expected to end the following morning at 7. 
 
What happens at that point is still unclear. According to the National Labor Relations Board, there are two types of strikes: economic or unfair labor practice. The unfair labor practice strike entitles workers to return to the job right after the strike — in this case that would mean Wednesday morning — whereas an economic strike allows for the administration to lock them out until the temporary workers are released. 
 
The hospital has planned to lock the workers out for four days following the strike, saying that was the length of contract with temporary workers required. Rogers said the hospital was successful in making its case to Mastroianni that this strike wasn't an "unfair labor" strike but an economic one.
 
"We are satisfied that is not," Rogers said. "It was clear this strike was going to occur long before the [labor complaints]."
 
The judge's ruling is not yet available through the court reporting system. The docket listing states the preliminary injunction was rejected "for the reasons stated in open court."
 
Markman, contacted prior to the issuance of the written ruling, said he has to review that ruling before stating whether or not the strike is classified as an unfair labor or economic. Since the hospital believes it is in the right to lock the nurses out, that is likely what will happen and a separate court case would have to decide if that is right or not.
 
The tense contract negotiations have been underway for more than a year and have hit a stalemate in recent months — and animosity has grown with each side filing unfair labor practice complaints against each other. 
 
The nurses specifically have been citing the need for increased staffing levels, which they picketed about back in 2014 in the wake of the closure of North Adams Regional Hospital. The nurses say they've documented hundreds of cases when they say the staffing levels sub-par and jeopardized patient safety.
 
When the nurses and the hospital began negotiations, the union was pushing for staffing ratios in the contract. That would have established minimum requirements for the number of registered nurses on duty at one time based on the number of patients, levels of sickness, and shift. 
 
Hospital officials, however, say they don't want to essentially give up control of how the hospital is staffed. The hospital has an internal staffing department that reviews the information and deploys resources as needed. But, those resources don't necessarily have to be nurses. The hospital calls it a team approach to providing care in which sometimes a unit may be short on nurses, but there are doctors and other specialists working the floor.
 
The hospital returned with a proposal to create a staffing committee consisting of union officials and nurses. That committee would meet regularly, review the data, and then make recommendations for any staffing changes. Hospital officials see that as a way to bring in the concerns of the nurses to the decision-making process without taking away flexibility. By putting ratios into the contract, the hospital would be liable for violating the contract should those staffing levels fall short at a given time.
 
The nurses say there is already a staffing committee that is ineffective. In May, nurses rejected that hospital's "best and final offer" by a union vote.
 
The hospital has outlined the proposal on its website and it boasts of 10 percent worth of pay raises over three years, quality health insurance, and the staffing committee.
 
"We cannot agree to the demand by the MNA that we accept its fixed staffing ratios or similar language that has the effect of controlling staffing decisions or its proposal that nurses cannot be temporarily reassigned from less busy units of the hospital to more busy ones to perform basic nursing services in relief of their colleagues," according to the statement on the hospital's website.
 
The nurses responded with a proposal for language changes which alleviates a charge nurse from being assigned, patients. That, they said, would allow for an extra hand on the floor and somebody to manage what is happening at a given time. 
 
The hospital, however, said that change doesn't address its concern about flexibility by locking in certain jobs. They also see the nurse's push for staffing as part of a statewide push by the MNA — and multiple MNA chapters across the state have either gone to a strike or near a strike over the similar issues. The MNA is also pushing for a statewide ballot initiative regarding the topic.
 
The hospital later filed an unfair labor practice complaint saying the union was essentially repackaging the same proposal and accused the nurses of "surface bargaining."
 
But there had been other issues as well. Regarding the health insurance, which the hospital is proposing to change the percentage nurses pay from 10 percent to 20 percent of the premium to align with other staff members, and the length of the contract still unsettled. The nurses filed an unfair labor practice labor saying the hospital hadn't provided enough data about the health insurance plans.
 
The union said it is still willing to call off the strike if the hospital returns to the table in the next few days. But both sides are prepared for Tuesday.
 
"We're ready. We've been preparing for this for several months," said hospital spokesman Michael Leary, emphasizing that Berkshire Medical Center will continue to treat patients and keep providing medical services to the community.
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Lanesborough Select Board Tables JMJ Negotiations

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — Tensions swirled at Monday's Select Board meeting in light of conversations to dissolve the Baker Hill Road District.

The meeting started with public comment, including from Tim Grogan, development consultant for JMJ RE Holdings, who emphasized that without a dissolution of the road district, the potential sale and redevelopment with the mall would fall through. 

He said the town expects about $760,000 in fiscal 2027 from the road district plus normal taxation. With redevelopment and no district, total income is projected to be around $1.1 million by 2029, he said, implying about a $300,000 annual surplus versus the status quo. He said he provided those calculations to the board.

Keeping the road district alive is not a compromise, Grogan said, referring to a proposal floated by the board last week to facilitate the mall's sale and work with the road district to reduce its tax assessment.

"This mentality by previous select boards and the Baker Hill Road District is what led the property to its current condition," he said. "Further, the Baker Hill Road District has every motive to make this compromise work, as their alternative is dissolution and non-existence. This practice is inherently in bad shape, and JMJ will not entertain any circumstance where the Baker Hill Road District continues to exist. 

"JMJ is inclined and trying to be treated like any other business in the town, and taxes such just like every other major shopping center in the state, keeping the Baker Hill Road District in place will continue to discourage redevelopment, and in this moment will break the delicate balance that has been negotiated between JMJ, Lanesborough, and [buyer Cypress Equities] to the point where the project is no longer feasible, and the only choice is litigation." 

Lyndon Moors, chair of the Finance Committee and recent appointee to the district's Prudential Committee, spoke personally in favor of keeping the district. He said it currently provides more than $500,000 per year to the town, which helps fund two police officers, fire and police vehicles, and over $100,000 per year for the Department of Public Works. He said losing that revenue could significantly impact town services and future budgets, especially as free cash may be lower going into FY28. 

He suggests downsizing the district's budget to reduce the tax burden on the mall and Target, which owns its building separately, while still maintaining revenue for the town. The board should let the litigation play out and not be too hasty in making decisions, he said.

"I think it is unlikely that we will see $1.1 million from the mall property without Baker Hill Road District in FY29. That's what I just heard. We are in FY27 right now. I think that's very unlikely two fiscal years from now, that we are enjoying the tax benefits to the tune of $1.1 million. So I would encourage the Select Board to put on the brakes a little bit, continue to be thoughtful, responsive, deliberative, and let's continue to do what's best for the town," Moors said.

Moors mentioned a Facebook post posted by Blake Mensing, one of the owners of JMJ, on the town group with documents that could be relevant to the meeting, saying it looked as though he was trying to negotiate in public. Mensing said it was an exercise of his First Amendment rights and an attempt to provide transparency to residents, especially since JMJ's opportunity to speak is limited to public comment.

Vice Chair Julie Baker suggested the compromise, said she and board member Michael Murphy have had "very robust and constructive discussions with the district."

"The purpose of it was to see if we could work with them to lessen the special tax burden that the district imposes on the owners, all owners of the mall properties, and while keeping the special tax district in place to preserve the police, fire, police car, and road maintenance services that we received from that special taxation," she said. 

Baker said the district is also interested in giving the road to the state, if the state allows. They also reviewed the district's $800,000 budget and discussed reductions but have not made concrete decisions.

"We find a great deal of interest in helping cut the budget there so that it would reduce the tax burden as well," she said. "So we're not ready with specific numbers yet on that, but there's certainly the willingness to make some major cuts into that budget."

Chair Deborah Maynard said she wants to dissolve the BHRD and that she would not want them to go ahead with the discussions.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories