Longest Nurses' Strike Continues

By Marycatherine Krause

Ashtabula, a northeastern Ohio city of 23,000 on the Lake Erie shoreline, is the site of the longest nurses' strike in U.S. history. On July 21, 1980, 170 registered nurses, members of the Ashtabula General Nurses Association (AGNA), went on strike in a bid to secure the first union contract with Ashtabula General Hospital. The hospital locked its doors and remained closed for six weeks due to lack of staff. In the ensuing fourteen months, hope for resolution has been renewed and disappointed several times. Striking nurses, federal mediators, and hospital aḍministration all agree that the strike will end; the questions are how and when.'

On September 18, 1981, the hospital rejected a -federal mediator's recommendation to settle the dispute. Meanwhile, the striking nurses voted to accept W. Kenneth Evans' draft. Contacted at the Cleveland office of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Evans explained that the hospital and the union were required to consider the fourpoint recommendation as a whole, not as four arguable points. Evans added, "I had reason to believe both sides would accept it; otherwise I wouldn't have made it [the recommendation]".

Commenting that mediators live by their credibility, Evans stated that the hospital's rejection of the recommendation called his credibility into question. As a result, he and the Service must now evaluate their present position and possible role in the settlement of the strike. Evans said the Service could opt to schedule another meeting, adopt a wait and see posture, or close out the case.

When asked to comment on Evans' assertion that he had reason to believe both sides would accept the resolution, Barbara McClintock, public relations officer for the hospital, said she had no information on any hospital input into Evans' recommendation. McClintock said that the hospital's rejection of the settlement recommendation hinged. on one point, the return of all striking nurses to the positions, units, shifts, and hours they held prior to the walkout. She added that in March 1981, the hospital notified the striking nurses that they could return to their old jobs if they responded within a specified time period. Pursuant to that action, common in such labor disputes, the hospital gave permanent assignments to the nurses working "inside". McClintock commented: "I have seen an awful lot of dedicated people working hard to provide health care for the community,' adding that the 234-bed hospital now has a total of 97 beds. Twenty-five were available when the hospital reopened in September, 1980.

Joan Kalhorn, chief negotiator for AGNA and an attorney with the Ohio Nurses Association (ONA), with which AGNA is affiliated, outlined the settlement recommendation. Aside from the return of the striking nurses to their jobs, the recommendation would have provided for 1) a two-year contract to commence as of May 31, 1981; 2) the referral of the issue of the hiring of LPN's to an advisory committee composed of an equal number of nurses and administrators; and 3), the resolution of all other issues as stipulated by the hospital in the May 6 "final offer". Kalhorn noted that the hiring of LPN's as well as operating room technicians and paramedics has become an issue since the walkout. Prior to the strike, Ashtabula General was an all-RN hospital. She added that the union moved off its original position, a moratorium "on the hiring of nonprofessionals and the recovery of the 160 RN positions available at the onset of the strike, to accept the mediator's plank.

Kalhorn also commented on the final element of the recommendation. She said that the acceptance of the terms of the hospital's final offer represented a compromise on every' other major issue the nurses

17th! Show 3:2 133

›

went out to gain as well as other staffing and economic concerns.

"The recommendation was not negotiable," said AGNA's chief negotiator. She explained their positions prior to the vote to accept the recommendation taken September 11.

Mary Runyan, president of the association, said the striking nurses voted 3 to 1 to accept the mediator's settlement negotiation. Describing it as "a poor offer," Runyan asserted the nurses accepted the recommendation to settle the strike. Presumably AGNA had some indication from the mediator that the hospital also would accept the settlement.

The return of all striking nurses to their positions, units, shifts, and hours was at issue in May when AGNA rejected the hospital's May 6 "final offer". Runyan explained that "Since AGNA has been on strike, we've gained literally nothing in negotiations, except on May 6, 1981 when federal mediators asked us to receive a final offer. The hospital came across with an $8.10 per hour base; we were only asking $7.40." However, AGNA found the language in the strike settlement, which determines how strikers will return to work, was unclear. They requested ..clarification of that portion of the proposal in the form of a list of nurses and assignments. "Twentyfour hours later we got the list. It made it appear that there were a couple of people who would not get their jobs back and that there 25 or 30 people who would work be displaced, would have to possibly somewhere else. So our nurses rejected the offer because we didn't go out for money alone".

Runyan said that prior to the hospital's May 6 proposal; AGNA had shifted its position on one major issue, the union security clause, and had dropped its positions on two others: 1) inclusion of the American Nurses Association Code for Nurses, a code of ethics for registered nurses, in their contract in September 1980; and 2) in April 1981, the provision in the nostrike clause which would have allowed the individual nurse to decide whether or not to honor another union's picket line.

In March 1981, AGNA officially moved off its demand for a union security clause that provided for an associate shop, in which all bargaining unit members must join ONA. AGNA shifted to a modified

STATE NEWS

association shop, in which present non-member nurses may decide not to join, but newly hired nurses must become members of ONA: Runyan added that in January 1981, the nurses proposed that all remaining issues be resolved by either fact-finding or binding arbitration, but the hospital refused.

Pointing to these compromises in support of the union's "good faith" bargaining efforts, Runyan voiced AGNA's belief that the hospital does not share this commitment. She cited the consistent refusal of the hospital's Board of Trustees to attend any of the negotiating sessions, despite the union's repeated requests that any and all Board members be present, as one example of the Board's unwillingness to bargain with the nurses. The union has filed unfair labor practice charges against the hospital with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB has set a January 18, 1982 hearing date on those charges. Runyan noted that a ruling in the union's favor would require the hospital to reinstate all striking nurses.

Evans, the federal mediator, said he could not assess the possible effects of the upcoming NLRB hearing on the strike. Commenting that there have been longer strikes, some continuing over a couple of years, Evans said that the dispute eventually must be settled. He outlined four possibilities for ending any strike: 1) an agreement between both parties; 2) a company decision to shut down; 3) a company decision to move out of town; and 4) a union decision to abandon its efforts. Evans said that he doubted the company, in this case a hospital, would either shut down or move out of town.

Negotiations are stalled as mediation and both parties evaluate their positions. Not unusual in the course of negotiations characterized as "sporadic,” "intermittent," and, on occasion, "mixed" by Cleveland's daily press, AGNA chief negotiator Joan Kalhorn plans to break the silence by again proposing fact-finding and binding arbitration. Both were rejected by the hospital in late January. On February 5, 1981, Floyd Farley, then acting hospital administrator, told The Plain Dealer: "These issues will not be handed to a third party....Collective bargain-

Legal Updates: Divorce

Joint Custody in Ohio

}

Divorcing parents may now be granted joint custody of their children under a new provision in Ohio law. This provision, Sub.. H.B. No. 71, was sponsored by State Representative Mary Boyle, who is a member of Cleveland Women's Counsel's Advisory Committee. The law, which became effective August 27, requires that parents requesting joint custody must file a plan with the court covering all factors relevant to the care, custody and control of the children, including physical living arrangements, child support obligations, provisions for medical and Ardental care, school placement, and visitation. The

couple must also file an affidavit stating that they have lived separately and followed some type of joint custody arrangement by mutual consent for at least 'six months, and have specifically followed the plan being submitted for at least four months. The granting of joint custody is dependent upon the court's ap"-"proval of the plan.

Jo.

Divorced parents with previous single custody orders may apply to the court for joint custody. The court has the discretion to waive the filing of an affidavit and the completion of a trial custody period for these parents.

43. Bes (2N NOKIA DOS QUE VIJAY

(continued on page 12)

Divorce Made Easier

The Ohio Senate is currently considering a bill that would permit couples who have lived separately for one year to obtain a divorce. Currently couples must have lived apart for two years to use this "no-fault" ground for divorce. The bill has already been passed by the House.

Non-Support Penalty

A bill that proposes stricter penalties for nonsupport of children haped the Ohio Senate and is 'now being studied by a House Committee. Under the proposed change in law, a second conviction of nonsupport of legitimate or illegitimate children would result in a fourth-degree felony conviction, making the person subject to a jail sentence. In addition, any individual who fails to provide support for twenty-six weeks (not consecutive) in any two-year period would 'be considered a fourth-degree felony offender. Persons who are unable to provide adequate support but contribute according to their ability and means would not be subject to such conviction.

October, 1981/What She Wants/Page 3