MANAGEMENT OF Prosser Memorial Hospital violated a section of the collective bargaining agreement with union employees, an arbitrator has found.
The arbitrator, George Lehleitner, found the Eastern Washington hospital had failed to pay time-and-a-half to bargaining unit employees when they returned from call back duty less than eight hours before the beginning of their next shift.
He ordered the hospital to abide by the terms of the labor agreement and to pay the time-and-a-half premium. He also ordered Prosser to reimburse bargaining unit employees and make them whole for all compensation lost as a result of the improper application of the relevant section of the agreement.
WSCCCE Council 2 Local 874-H represents a general unit of full and regular part-time employees of the hospital, excluding nurses, licensed practical nurses and designated professional and managerial employees.
The dispute between the union and management involved interpretation of a section in the agreement. The section related to the payment of time-and-a-half pay when there were fewer than eight hours between scheduled shifts. The union contended that the eight-hour minimum applied only to the eight hours immediately before the next shift.
Management, however, said that the hospital was not required to pay the time-and-a-half premium as long as employees received at least eight hours of rest between regularly scheduled shifts.
The parties agreed to mediate, during which time the hospital continued to pay the time-and-a-half premium in accordance with the union’s interpretation of the section. When mediation proved unsuccessful, the hospital stopped paying the premium and the union filed a grievance.
WSCCCE Council 2 argued that management had applied the section consistently in terms of the union’s interpretation for more than a year until July 2006, when management sought to unilaterally impose a different interpretation. For that reason, it qualified as an established past practice. In addition, logic supported the union’s position and the language in the agreement was clear.
WSCCCE Council 2 contended that the hospital wanted to take away a negotiated benefit provided for in the labor agreement because it believed it was too costly. The hospital should not be allowed to go back on its word and secure through arbitration what it failed to achieve at the bargaining table, the union said.
The hospital argued that its interpretation of the language of the agreement was the correct one.
In finding that the hospital violated the labor agreement, Lehleitner said in his view “one need look no further than the relevant contract language to decide this case.” He said the language in the section “either read literally or in context is clearly consistent with the union’s interpretation.”
“It may be true that management representatives at the bargaining had a different understanding than their union counterparts,” Lehleitner added. “However, I find it surprising that management, which, after all, controls payroll and scheduling, did not realize employees were being compensated in accordance with the union’s interpretation for the better part of a year.”
General Counsel Audrey Eide represented Council 2 in the hearing.
