The election marked a setback for the Service Employees International Union, who led the organizing campaign with Mercy employees concerned about patient care, staffing levels and salaries.

Officials from SEIU Local 250 said the election would not end their organizing efforts with Mercy and that they will challenge the outcome with the National Labor Relations Board, which oversaw the election.

Mercy officials said they were grateful for the support expressed by employees in rejecting the union and would continue to work to address their issues and concerns.

Mercy Sister Clare Marie Dalton refuted critics charges that Mercy during the two-year organizing effort did not honor Catholic social teaching in support of workers right to organize. Cathy Joyce/Herald photo

Mercy technical employees—including licensed vocational nurses and others involved in direct patient care—voted 305 to 193 against the union. A larger group of service employees voted 701 to 598 against, although the final count was still in doubt and must be certified by the NLRB due to an additional 116 challenged ballots.

Nearly 2,300 Mercy workers were eligible to vote at five hospital sites: Mercy General in Sacramento, Mercy San Juan and Mercy American River in Carmichael, Mercy in Folsom and Methodist in south Sacramento. At Mercy’s Bruceville Terrace skilled nursing facility, workers voted 75 to 24 for labor representation by SEIU.

A vote in favor of the union would have tripled the number of employees SEIU Local 250 represents within Catholic Healthcare West, Mercy’s parent company. In a separate vote the same day, more than 400 employees at three CHW hospitals in San Francisco voted in favor of Local 250.

Lisa Hubbard, SEIU Local 250 spokeswoman, accused Mercy’s management of “interference and intimidation” during the election process. She said employees would be filing objections to the election based on illegal tactics managers used to “pressure employees on how to vote.”

“Unfortunately, what employees sought for two years to avoid became a reality,” she said. “Employees were subjected to one-on-one meetings where they felt pressured, with a level of intensity that was unbelievable. There was a concerted effort by management to influence the employees’ decision.”

Mary Hillman, a respiratory therapist at Mercy American River Hospital, said forming a union “was about patient care and the future of our hospitals. By not respecting our freedom to choose that voice without interference, Mercy management has done a great disservice to our community.”

Jill Dryer, spokeswoman for Mercy Healthcare Sacramento, strongly refuted charges that the hospital system acted improperly. In fact, she said, Mercy continually assured employees that while the system preferred to maintain a “direct relationship” with workers, it supported their right to “make their own decision.”

“The behavior and actions of our managers and supervisors were appropriate throughout the campaign,” she said. “We were very mindful of the potential divisiveness the vote could have. We believe this process has been a positive learning experience. We don’t see any winners or losers. What we have now is a real opportunity for us to reconnect with our employees.”

Prior to the vote, Mercy employees received a letter from four top executives of Mercy hospitals in the Sacramento area. “It is our sincere desire that you will vote ‘no,’” they told workers.

In the same letter, the executives said they believed SEIU representation “would change the relationship that we share with you and other hospital employees, and would detract from our ability to continue to best serve our patients and their families.”

They also assured employees that their voting process would be fair and confidential and urged workers to exercise their rights: “Only you will know how you voted—not your manager, not your co-workers, not the SEIU,” the letter said.

In a Jan. 20 letter distributed to employees, Mercy Sister Clare Marie Dalton, vice president for mission services for Mercy Healthcare, said the hospital system’s intent throughout the election process was to share information with employees to help them look at both sides of the issue and determine what was best.

“When you make this important decision, consider the impact it will have on you and your relationship with Mercy,” the letter told employees. “Let me assure you,” Sister Dalton added, “that whatever you decide and whatever the final vote is, the outcome of the election will be respected by the Sisters of Mercy.”

In an interview with The Herald, Sister Dalton refuted critics’ charges that Mercy during the two-year organizing effort did not honor longstanding Catholic social teaching in support of workers’ right to organize.

“We certainly believe in the social teachings and what they promote for employees,” she said. “But our interpretation of this situation is that there are other ways for employees to have their needs met and we feel we’re doing that already. We may not be perfect, but we are doing the best we can under the circumstances.”

Hospital management “felt we had an obligation and responsibility to stay in open communication with our staff,” she added. “And our intent was that we would be both ethical and legal in that process. There was a lot of education, a lot of diligence with our managers that we would communicate with employees without undue pressure.

“We are diligently and in a soul-searching way trying to operate these organizations to provide care for the sick in the best way we can,” Sister Dalton said. “And while management holds the power, we are not misusing that power.”

But the Rev. Chris Hartmire, a co-chair of the Fair Election Oversight Commission, said the health care system crossed the line in its actions with employees. He said the committee of religious and community leaders appointed by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa to monitor the election interviewed employees and has documented examples of unethical tactics used by Mercy supervisors.

“What we actually witnessed is a classic, negative, anti-union campaign,” he said. “Over the weeks it was more and more obvious that hospital administrators, regardless of what the Mercy sisters had decided, did whatever it took to beat the union in this election. And they did it without regard to community sentiment.”

Hartmire, program director for the homeless services agency, Loaves and Fishes, who worked for many years with the United Farm Workers, criticized hospital officials’ letters to employees.

“They wouldn’t be coercive, if they weren’t coming from people who hold people’s jobs and paychecks in their hands,” he contended. “I have the greatest respect for the Sisters of Mercy and their work for the poor, but in this case they are the powerful and they allowed their managers to use that power to intimidate their own workers.”

Dryer said Mercy officials approached the Oversight Commission with caution out of concern about following proper procedures for the union election.

“We didn’t want to jeopardize an election that was being governed by the NLRB, so any complaints or concerns needed to be brought to the NLRB’s attention as the governing body,” she said. “No other body was needed.”

Msgr. George Higgins, veteran labor priest who came to Sacramento in mid-December to listen to representatives on both sides of the dispute, returned to witness the election’s outcome. He told The Herald he “is very worried about the pastoral implications of what has happened.”

“There are a lot of unhappy employees—many of them Catholic—and no church presence for them,” he said. “I’m afraid that this will be a long time healing and I’m concerned about the image that may have been projected that the church is trying to keep unions out.

“If the Sisters of Mercy think this is the end, they’re living in another world,” he contended. “From the broad, national view, the battle is far from over. The hospitals would be far better off to have a constructive relationship with the union. What these employees want is a voice and this is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching.”

Copyright © 2000 Diocese of Sacramento - All Rights Reserved

[Catholic Herald - This Issue]