Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland, Inc. v. Service Employees International Union et al

Filing 24

ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND CROSS-PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; RESETTING HEARING DATE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/13/2012)

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL & RESEARCH
CENTER OAKLAND, INC. D/B/A
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OAKLAND,

No. C 12-03862 SI
ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
CROSS-PETITION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION; RESETTING HEARING
DATE

8
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

v.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERSWEST, and DOES 1 though 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

/

14
15

On July 24, 2012, plaintiff Children’s Hospital Oakland filed a motion for preliminary

16

injunction to enjoin defendant, a decertified union, from requesting or compelling plaintiff Hospital to

17

participate in arbitration proceedings regarding the Hospital’s employees’ grievances. The Hospital

18

argues that its participation in such arbitration proceedings would give rise to unfair labor practices

19

charges, because the National Labor Relations Board decertified defendant and held an election whereby

20

the Hospital’s employees chose a new union as their exclusive bargaining representative. On August

21

23, 2012 defendants filed an opposition to the Hospital’s motion, arguing that defendants have standing

22

to pursue arbitration of these employee grievances because the grievances arose prior to decertification.

23

Additionally, on August 29, 2012, defendants filed a cross-petition to compel arbitration. The Hospital

24

filed a response to the cross-petition on September 12, 2012. Defendants have not yet filed a reply.

25

Underlying the instant motion and cross-petition are three employee grievances filed prior to

26

defendants’ May 24, 2012 decertification. According to the hospital, the newly certified union “can

27

pursue the subject grievances, either through arbitration ore [sic] negotiations.” Dkt. 22 at 5.

Additionally, the Hospital states “[the newly certified union] may properly decide to trade some of the

2

issues involved in these grievances for other objectives in negotiations that it deems more important and

3

beneficial to its members.” Id. Defendants express doubt that the newly certified union will pursue

4

these grievances, stating that, “[s]ince there is no evidence that the Hospital and the [newly certified

5

union] agreed to arbitrate these grievances, this lawsuit and motion by the Hospital may be an attempt

6

to avoid any arbitration with either the [decertified union] or the [newly certified union] . . .” Dkt. 17

7

at 2. Moreover defendants state that “[t]he Hospital has not presented any evidence that the [newly

8

certified union] has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Hospital containing a

9

binding grievance and arbitration procedure.” Id. at 3. Additionally, defendants assert that because the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

newly certified union is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement which was in place when

11

these claims arose, the newly certified union is under no obligation to arbitrate these grievances. Id. at

12

15. Therefore, it is apparent that the parties have conflicting positions on the impact of the instant

13

motion and cross-petition on the future of these underlying employee grievances.

14

Because they are closely related, the Court will hold a hearing on both the motion and cross-

15

petition on Friday, September 28, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. The Court DIRECTS each party to be prepared

16

to discuss the effect of the motion and cross-petition on the underlying employee grievances. In

17

particular, the Court anticipates discussion of the legal status of grievances arising prior to

18

decertification, where a new union has been certified but no new collective bargaining agreement is in

19

place, as is apparently the case here.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: September 13, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27

2