Judge: UPMC engaged in unfair labor practices; appeal planned
UPMC lost a round this week in its ongoing battle with unionization attempts when a judge with the National Labor Relations Board ruled the hospital giant engaged in unfair labor practices and violated federal law.
In a 123-page decision dated Friday, Administrative Law Judge Mark Carissimi ruled largely in favor of the Service Employees International Union, which is attempting to unionize some 3,500 non-clinical UPMC employees, on 21 issues, including reinstating four workers with back pay who the judge found were terminated for union-related activities.
UPMC spokesman Paul Wood said the hospital system would appeal the ruling to the full NLRB.
“We are disappointed by the administrative law judge's decision, and disagree with his findings. We believe the record fully supported our actions with regard to under-performing employees and failed SEIU organizing efforts in which our employees have shown little to no interest,” Wood said.
The judge issued a cease-and-desist order from certain UPMC practices, including denying non-employee organizers access to its cafeteria, engaging in surveillance of employees and organizers, threatening an employee with a poor evaluation because of union activities and prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia in non-patient care areas, according to the filing.
“This is an important victory for me and for all my co-workers at UPMC hospitals across the city,” said Jim Staus, one of the reinstated employees. “We stood our ground and proved that UPMC has been breaking the law. Now we need UPMC to make a real commitment to stop violating workers' rights and to let us form our union without illegal harassment or intimidation.”
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7886 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.