Hospital to appeal arbitration action
Uniontown Hospital plans to further appeal an arbitration action that could cost it about $500,000 in wages to about 100 of its employees represented by Teamsters Union Local 491. On Jan. 14, Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose in Pittsburgh ruled against the hospital’s appeal that a federal arbitrator’s decision be overturned.
The arbitrator, William Miller, ruled that the hospital had agreed in its collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters that it would make certain annual wage payments on a cumulative basis.
According to Vito Dragone, Local 491 secretary-treasurer, the payments were to bring workers in similar jobs into parity as far as their wages were concerned.
“Chief Judge Ambrose ruled that the arbitrator’s decision was rationally derived from the terms of the parties’ (the union and hospital) collective bargaining agreement, and therefore the union was entitled to enforce the arbitration decision against the hospital,’ Dragone said.
“We obviously do not agree with that decision,’ said Jim Proud, vice president of marketing at Uniontown Hospital.
Dragone said the union filed a grievance over the contract dispute that first went to a federal arbitrator, who ruled in favor of the union.
“We did not pay that money in a cumulative manner, and the arbitrator ruled at the first level where he thought we should. As a result, we went to the Pittsburgh court to appeal that decision,’ Proud said. But the court would not overturn the arbitrator’s ruling.
“Yes, we are going to appeal it to the Philadelphia Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We felt that the decision would have been appealed to that court in any event. This Pittsburgh (court) decision, were it to be favorable to us, I’m sure the union would have appealed and vice versa. It’s no surprise to us that the isuse will probably receive final resolution in Philadelphia rather than Pittsburgh,’ Proud said.
Proud added that Ambrose’s decision overturning the arbitrator’s decision reflected that “they know it will, in all probability, be appealed,’ and that the judge would be “hesitant to overturn the decision or vacate the decision, which means make it go away.’
Proud said part of Ambrose’s written decision, “in my opinion, validates our appeal. She said, ‘Although I may disagree with the arbitrator’s approach, I would exceed my limited authority in this context if I were to vacate his decision.’
“It’s hard not to read into that that she leans the hospital’s way,’ Proud added. “But knowing this will wind up in Philadelphia anyway, she is reluctant to get involved.’
Proud said the hospital sees the issue as one of contract interpretation and whether lump sum amounts should be considered cumulative or, as the hospital believes, stand alone as an annual lump sum amount.
“The original arbitrator, William Miller, who issued the first decision, stated that the contract, that the relevant language, ‘does not specifically say that the lump sum payments are to be made in a cumulative manner.’
“When you couple that with what the agreement says about an arbitrator and what his powers are, that the arbitrator shall not be empowered to add to any of the provisions of this agreement, by his decision, we believe he has exceeded his authority in adding to the agreement,’ Proud said.
“If there is one quote that should stand out in 17 months and almost 35 sessions of negotiations it is that the union never presented or discussed this as something that should be cumulative in nature. Obviously, the hospital never agreed to it. This is very much the union attempting to come through the back door to get something that was never negotiated in the many months of negotiations. The hospital has no problem living up to the full to every thing we agreed to. We have done so since June 29, 2001. But, we do have a problem being pushed into something we never even considered, let alone agreed to,’ Proud added.
Teamsters Local 491 represents about 420 hospital employees.
Dragone said the union claims the hospital agreed to, in negotiations and the contract, make the cumulative payments.
“The difference for many employees over the course of the five-year contract was as much as $6,000 per employee. The union took the case before a labor arbitrator, who ruled in favor of the union that the hospital had agreed to make the annual wage payments on a cumulative basis.
“Although the contract provided that arbitration decisions were final and binding, the hospital took its case to federal court in an effort to avoid making the wage payments, which the union estimates to be in excess of $500,000,’ Dragone said.
He said the court’s decision “represents another milestone in the employees’ efforts to obtain living wages through their employment with the hospital. I’m very pleased for these employees. They work hard for the hospital, and they deserve every penny of their negotiated wages. It is very gratifying that a federal judge threw the hospital’s case out of court.”