St. Anthony Community Hospital settles charges filed by union

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090120/BIZ/901200315

Warwick facility agrees to post activities it will not engage in

By Christian Livermore
Times Herald-Record
January 20, 2009

WARWICK — St. Anthony Community Hospital has agreed to a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board and workers regarding charges that the hospital violated the rights of workers trying to unionize.

The hospital agreed to the settlement after the board found merit in charges by health-care workers union SEIU 1199 that the hospital engaged in unfair labor practices in trying to interfere with a bid by workers to unionize, said Suzanne Sullivan, an attorney with the NLRB Region 2 office in Manhattan.

Under the agreement reached Thursday, the hospital admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed to post a notice throughout its facilities listing a litany of anti-union activities in which it will not engage.

Union sees settlement as victory

"I think it's a great thing, because they are accused of all this and it's true," said Ashley Von Hahsel, a certified nursing assistant at the hospital's Schervier Pavilion nursing facility. "They really did torment us during this whole campaign."

Deborah Marshall, spokeswoman for Bon Secours Charity Health System, the parent organization of St. Anthony, vigorously disputed any contention that the hospital violated the law.

"We are not anti-union," she said. "We believe that people have to make good judgments for themselves, and if that means going into the union, they're going into the union. But there was no admission by the Labor Relations Board about any wrongdoing."

FULL story at link.

[midnight]

1. Corporate hospital spokeswomen believes that

people "HAVE TO MAKE GOOD JUDGMENTS" for themselves? Somehow if that is true, why does the aid trying to get this right, state that she was tormented while trying to have this right? "They really did torment us during this whole campaign." I suppose the corporate spokesperson DID NOT THINK that this aid and others had a right to think for themselves, and that the corporation was going to "HAVE TO MAKE GOOD JUDGMENTS" for them instead.