Claremont, NH—The registered nurses of Valley Regional Hospital will be conducting informational picketing outside the entrance to the Claremont-based facility beginning at 7 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2000 as contract talks continue to stall over the nurses first union contract.

Contract talks have dragged on for more than 16 months while a number of issues remain unresolved, including staffing, hours of work, salary and pension. A large group of the nurses will picket on Monday, with the intent of a smaller contingent of nurses to continue the picketing daily until a settlement is reached.

In July, the nurses delivered a petition (signed by more than 85% of the local bargaining unit) to the hospital's CEO and board of trustees for support in moving the process towards a fair and equitable settlement.

"The leadership of this institution continues to ignore our concerns, and to delay the completion of a contract that we need to guarantee a safe working environment for ourselves and our patients, provide fair compensation to the nurses, and provide us with the ability to recruit and retain the staff needed to maintain the highest standards of quality care," said Jennifer Weeks, RN, an emergency room nurse and chair of the nurses' bargaining unit. "We are conducting this picketing to make the public aware of our concerns, and to demonstrate our resolve to stand up for what we believe in."

In an historic union election held on January 21, 1999 the registered nurses of Valley Regional Health Care, Inc. (VRH) of Claremont, voted 53 – 22 for union representation by the Massachusetts Nurses Association. The nurses are the only private sector, acute care hospital nurses in the state who are unionized, according to the MNA. The nurses' union and hospital management began formal negotiations for the first contract in April of 1999.

While progress has been made on some issues, there are a number of critical issues still in dispute that are holding up settlement of the agreement. These include the hospital's demand to have the right to unilaterally change a nurse's hours of work and shift without notice, the right to mandate nurses to work overtime against their will, and the right to send nurses home without pay when management believes census is too low. (This last proposal was made 11 months into negotiations, which the union has challenged.) In addition, the hospital has rejected contract language the nurses have submitted that will provide a process for management and staff to address concerns about staffing conditions at the facility. Management is also refusing the nurses' call for a salary scale and pension plan that will allow VRH to recruit and retain nurses as the industry enters a major national nursing shortage.

Many of these same issues drove 615 nurses at St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester to engage in a historic, 49-day strike, which ended victoriously for the nurses on May 18th. The nurses won national recognition for their stance against these draconian policies on the part of Tenet Health Care, the for-profit owner of the hospital.

Below is a summary of each of the key issues in the Valley Regional Hospital nurses' dispute:

Staffing and Mandatory Overtime

As health care organizations have attempted to deal with cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, as well as managed care, they too often have attempted to compensate by cutting back on nurse staffing levels, forcing nurses to care for more patients with fewer resources and support, and for longer hours. To address the situation and to create a safer staffing pattern for the hospital, the union and management have been negotiating a process where each side will have 60 days to review each unit in the facility to evaluate its staffing pattern and to determine needed improvements and changes. Those recommendations would then be submitted to hospital management for consideration and implementation. After 30 days if there are issues in dispute that can't be resolved, the union and management would submit their proposals to an impartial mediator for a resolution.

While management has agreed to the concept of this proposal, they refuse to include it in the contract subject to grievance and arbitration procedures guaranteed by the contract.

"In essence, they are unwilling to grant real power in these decisions to the nurses and to subject any of their staffing issues to third party review," said Weeks. "To the nurses, this can only mean they have no intention of working with us to really improve staffing conditions at this facility."

The nurses are further alarmed by the hospitals insistence on the right to "mandate" overtime for nurses. Mandatory overtime is one of the most controversial issues in nursing today. It refers to a situation where management mandates or forces nurses to work extra hours or an entire shift at the end of their regularly scheduled shift. Mandatory overtime occurs in facilities where there is not enough staff on hand to fill the shifts required to care for patients. In the increasingly understaffed nursing environment, mandatory overtime is being used as a staffing mechanism.

The policy is unsafe for nurses and for patients, in that in places patients in the hands of exhausted nurses who are not prepared to be working the hours required of them. Mandatory overtime has not been a problem at the facility to date, which is why the nurses and the MNA are concerned about the hospital's demand to include language to allow them to do it.

"Given their reluctance to work with us on staffing issues, their recent requests of nurses to work 16 hour shifts, and their desire to have the right to mandate overtime only leads us to believe they intend to staff this hospital by forcing nurses against their will to work extra hours and extra shifts, instead of hiring the nurses needed to provide safe care."

Change of Hours and Shifts/Not Needed Time Policy

The hospital is seeking unilateral control over the nurses' schedule at the facility, including the right to adjust a nurse's hours of work or shift as they see fit, without prior notice or approval by the nurse. In addition, they want to codify in the contract their right to send nurses home without pay when management believes census is too low to keep nurses on staff. They are calling this provision, "not needed time." This proposal was introduced 11 months into bargaining after the parties had signed off on a number of related issues.

"The ability to have set hours and shift is a basic right of every American worker, no matter what the industry," said Weeks. "For nurses, many of whom are mothers with children, these policies are even more untenable given the family and child care responsibilities of our members. We deserve a set schedule and guaranteed hours, which is language management had already agreed to."

By contrast, the nurses have language on the table that would prevent the hospital from changing a nurse's hours or shift without first notifying the union and negotiating the proposed change. If both sides can't agree to the change, the issue would be submitted to arbitration by an independent third party.

Weeks adds that sending nurses home on low census days is equally unacceptable and unfair. "They are trying to turn us into a casual workforce with no rights to a decent wage and a day's work. We were hired as full-time permanent employees, not as flexible, casual employees. Why would anybody agree to such a policy? This is exactly why we voted for our union in the first place, to stop management from getting away with policies such as these."

The MNA is challenging the right of management to even propose this policy as it was placed on the negotiating table more than 11 months into the process, which is a violation of labor law.

Salary, Pension and Health Care Benefits

The nurses are seeking to establish a 12-step salary ladder for the nurses that will create equity in the pay for nurses, while rewarding nurses for their experience and loyalty to the institution. Currently there is dramatic variation in the salaries of the nurses, with no mechanism to reward experience in a fair manner. The nurses' salary scale, which awards a 4.5 percent pay increase for each year of service, is based on comparisons to Western Massachusetts unionized hospital
such as the Berkshire Health System, the facility from which Valley Regional Hospital CEO was hired.

The employer has proposed a step scale in which the steps are subject to the employer's evaluation of the employee, the percentage between steps varies and placement would be at no more than $1.00 increase in their hourly rate. Thus, more than half of the nurses would not be placed on the scale and would make the scale meaningless as far as achieving any pay equity based on RN years of experience.

The nurses are also seeking an increase in the pension contributions by the employer to reward senior nurses who stay with the facility. The average age of nurses on staff is 47 years old, and nurses deserve a pension that will provide for them as they complete their careers at VRH. The shortage of nurses in the country is among the most experienced and seasoned professionals. Increasing the pension benefits makes sense as a strategy for attracting and retaining experienced nurses in this emerging crisis in nursing.

The nurses are also seeking to maintain the integrity of their health insurance benefit, as management is seeking to increase their out-of-pocket costs for health insurance by more than 5% per year.

For more information about the status of negotiations and other outstanding issues in dispute, join the nurses on the picket line or call those listed as contacts at the top of this press release.