Although the attempt to unionize about 2,400 nurses in Duke Hospital and adjacent clinics continues to stretch on, both sides claimed victory in late June when the National Labor Relations Board handed down its first ruling on the unfair labor practice charges filed against Duke University by the International Union of Operating Engineers.
The NLRB dismissed one set of allegations, refusing to issue a complaint on them. However, the board also found enough evidence to further process the remaining allegations in the unfair labor practice charge.
Gary Stiffler, acting assistant regional director of the NLRB, said the involved parties must now reach a settlement within "a reasonable amount of time," or the case will go before an NLRB judge. He explained that a settlement would likely result in Duke posting announcements throughout the Hospital for 60 days. In the postings, he said, Duke would promise to stop making certain statements about the unionization process.
But the NLRB found inadequate evidence to establish that Duke had granted wage and benefit improvements with the specific intent of curbing union support. Although Duke had bolstered nurses' packages in the spring, the Hospital provided sufficient documentation to prove that the actions were part of an administrative plan put into effect without regard to union activity.
The IUOE's and Duke's interpretations of the NLRB decision differed, with each side highlighting its own victory. "The NLRB... has dismissed all of the significant charges filed against [Duke University Medical Center] by the Operating Engineers," Duke Hospital CEO Mike Israel wrote in a statement released June 23.
But IUOE spokesperson David Miller pointed out that Duke will still have to undergo scrutiny as the other charges continue to be examined. And although Israel maintained that all the substantial charges had been dismissed, Miller contended that the most important charges-those that accuse Duke of saying bargaining starts at zero with a union-are still standing.
"That's a hallmark violation," Miller said. "It could set the election aside if such a thing isn't resolved."
Union supporter Connie Donahue, a clinical nurse in the trauma unit, added that the fear of losing benefits resonates with Hospital nurses. "The reason why a lot of nurses came to Duke is because of the decent benefit package," she said. "If nurses... think they're going to lose these benefits, that is significant."
Both the Medical Center and the IUOE have the legal right to appeal the board's decision with the NLRB's general counsel in Washington, D.C. Israel stressed that Duke wants to have an election as soon as possible and will therefore not appeal.
But Miller indicated that the union would most likely appeal the decision. Although the IUOE had not filed an appeal as of July 14-the deadline-Miller said he was confident the NLRB would grant an extension. Miller said the union would continue to look for additional evidence to strengthen their appeal.
Both union supporters and anti-union advocates in the Hospital said they were not surprised by the dismissal of some of the allegations; they said they expected Duke to have the necessary documentation. But some pro-union nurses are still skeptical about whether the overlap between union activity and benefit implementation is coincidental.
"It was targeted toward clinical nurses... and [Duke] had not done that before," said Donahue, a prominent leader in the movement to unionize. "Why weren't [the benefits] announced before?"
The factions are split on the remaining charges.
April Perry, a clinical research coordinator and anti-union organizer, believes that the union has not gained any additional support by filing charges or postponing a vote-moves she says are delay tactics.
"Their support has waned significantly...," she said, adding that she thinks the unfair labor practice charges are technicalities. "They're scrambling to change that."
Perry added that she knows one-time union supporters who have switched sides.
"They're seeing that this is another level of bureaucracy and only the start of problems we would face when negotiating a contract [after unionization]," she said. "People have gained more information.... The decision to vote for or against the union was initially an emotional one-people have now had the time to think about it more."
But Donahue and union supporter Marge Dooley, a clinical nurse in the surgical inpatient unit, disagree. "There are still a lot of fence-sitters who have not made up their minds," Donahue said. "Some nurses have become union supporters after seeing Duke's efforts to discourage nurses' [unionization attempt]."
Dooley admitted that union supporters have been silent in the past few weeks as they waited for the labor charges to be resolved. Still, she predicted a big upswing in union support-and more activity from the pro-union camp-in the coming weeks.
Either way, no one wants to see the union established without a vote. The NLRB could take this action if it finds Duke guilty of exceptionally severe violations. Representatives on both sides acknowledged that this is quite unlikely.
Miller said IUOE only wants to unionize the Hospital with nurses' proven support. "We're not suggesting that the union be brought in without a vote," he said.
But the vote is still several months away and will most likely take place sometime in the fall, even though the IUOE has not yet filed a notice to proceed with the election.
"We don't want to delay the process anymore," Donahue said. "But the NLRB is still investigating the charges and we want everyone to hear what they have to say."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.