A judge’s order blocked the University of California
nurses’ scheduled July 21 strike, requiring the nurses’
union and the UC to attend legal proceedings in August before a
strike can be reconsidered.
The temporary restraining order, issued by the Sacramento
Superior Court just one day before the planned walk-out, called for
the nurses’ union to stop sanctioning the strike and for the
UC to refrain from taking any retaliatory action against employees
involved in the strike plans. The restraining order is in effect
until a hearing scheduled for August 11.
UC representatives said the university has been bargaining in
good faith, but said the California Nurses Association’s
strike plan itself was illegal, as contract negotiations are still
officially underway.
Nurses at eight UC medical facilities held pickets and rallies
on July 21 instead of proceeding with their planned one-day
walkout, complying with the order while still emphasizing their
desire for wage increases, guaranteed staffing ratios and secure
pensions and benefits.
Work attendance was notably high that day, requiring hospitals
to use very few of the temporary nurses contracted by the
university, said UC spokesman Noel Van Nyhuis. He added that
although a strike did not occur, the preparations made in
anticipation of a walkout were very costly.
The strike plans and subsequent rallies did not disrupt normal
hospital activities, but expenses included travel costs and
accommodations for the temporary nurses as well as lost revenue
from canceled procedures, said Thomas Rosenthal, the UCLA Medical
Center’s chief medical officer.
“We weren’t sure how many nurses were going to come
in as scheduled,” said Van Nyhuis. “They wanted to be
prepared just in case some nurses didn’t show up.”
Many non-emergency procedures scheduled for July 21 had been
cancelled or postponed in anticipation of low staffing and
temporary nurses had to be paid regardless of whether they worked a
shift, Rosenthal said, adding that the costs to the medical center
were “in the million-dollar range.”
Nurses say they are pleased with how the rallies proceeded.
CNA officials informed nurses of the rallies and dissuaded them
from staging a “sick-out,” in which significant numbers
of nurses would call in sick, said Kathy Daniel, a nurse in the
UCLA Medical Center home health department and a CNA statewide
director.
“There’s a right way and a wrong way to do
this,” Daniel said. “We want to make sure we’re
doing this the right way.”
The Westwood rally enjoyed the support of politicians and
representatives from several other unions. Three California
assemblymen and the heads of two unions ““ the Coalition of
University Employees and the University Professional and Technical
Employees ““ spoke to the crowd assembled at Westwood
Boulevard and Le Conte Avenue.
Nurses at the rally stressed their desire for wages and benefits
comparable to those being offered by nearby hospitals such as
Cedars-Sinai and Kaiser Permanente.
“We get the sickest patients in the community,” said
Gloria Schibel, a nurse at the UCLA Medical Center’s
cardiothoracic intensive care unit, adding that the salary the UC
has been offering is not enough.
The university disagrees, saying that the UC’s salary
proposals ensure that all UC nurses will be paid competitive
wages.
There was no friction between the nurses and the university
representatives present at the rally, Daniel said.
“They were very respectful, as were we,” she said.
“Everyone was very diplomatic.”
The CNA contract expired on July 8, after having been extended
three times. The UC and the CNA have been negotiating a new
contract for nearly six months, but negotiations stalled, and the
union passed a strike vote on July 7.
UC spokesman Paul Schwartz said the proposed strike was illegal
since negotiations had neither reached an official impasse nor been
mediated by a third party, both of which must take place before a
strike can be legally declared.
“We’re still in the first phase,” Schwartz
said.
Last week, the university took the issue to the state Public
Employment Relations Board, which found in favor of the UC and
filed a complaint against the strike on July 19. The next day, a
Sacramento judge issued a temporary restraining order against the
strike and scheduled an injunction hearing.
But the CNA says that the planned strike would have been legal
were it not for the restraining order, and that the
university’s recent actions have widened the rift between the
UC and the nurses.
“The strike was planned in response to certain violations
of labor law that the UC committed during negotiations,” said
CNA spokeswoman Liz Jacobs. “Because of these unfair labor
practices, we believe we acted legally in calling a
strike.”
Spokesmen from both sides expressed confidence that the August
injunction hearing will be decided in their favor.
No negotiations had been scheduled as of Sunday.