Arbitrator sides with nurses who lost med center jobs 

By MELISSA KLEIN   THE JOURNAL NEWS   (Original publication: July 28, 2004)

VALHALLA — Twenty nurses at Westchester Medical Center who lost their positions in the hospital's first round of staff cuts last year are entitled to get their jobs back, an arbitrator has ruled.  The arbitrator found the hospital violated its contract with the nurses union when it did not first cut unfilled positions and the jobs of probationary employees. The arbitrator, Roger Maher, in a decision dated earlier this month, told the hospital the nurses should be offered back their old jobs within 30 days and that they should be compensated for any monetary losses resulting from the layoffs.

"The arbitrator is convinced that the language of (the contract) is unambiguous and required the employer to eliminate all vacancies and probationary employees before eliminating the positions of the nurses whose positions were eliminated in this layoff," Maher wrote in his decision.

Westchester Medical Center put out a statement yesterday saying it disagreed with the decision.  "We still believe we acted in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and our actions were least disruptive to employees and operations," the statement said.  The medical center said it would request a clarification of the decision.  The hospital in March 2003 cut 110 jobs, including those of 20 nurse supervisors and staff education nurses, in an effort to save $8 million. The layoffs came as the medical center attempted to pull out of a financial crisis that resulted in an $83 million loss last year.  The hospital made the staff cuts by declaring a "fiscal layoff," which is permitted under the nurses' contract.

Tom Darby, a labor representative with the New York State Nurses Association, said the provision for such a layoff was put in the contract to allow for the quick elimination of jobs in an extreme situation. After the vacant positions and probationary workers were cut, then the jobs of the least senior employees would be eliminated, he said.  But Darby said the hospital did not adhere to the provisions of a fiscal layoff.  "They just laid off who they wanted," he said. "They didn't follow any rules in the contract."

The nurses union also has filed grievances to contest, under similar grounds, subsequent layoffs, said Mark Genovese, a union spokesman.  In the case of the March 2003 layoffs, the union filed a grievance and hearings were held with the hospital. When that did not resolve the situation, the matter was brought before an independent arbitrator.  During the arbitration, the union contended the medical center cut the jobs of mostly senior nurses, some of whose appointment dates go back as far as 1982, the arbitration decision says.  Patrick Coonan, the hospital's director of nursing at the time of the layoffs, testified in the arbitration hearing that he had to decide which positions to eliminate. He said his main concern was not to affect direct caregivers or the quality of care delivered, according to the decision.  "He further testified that by eliminating vacancies, he could not have achieved the goal, which was saving money," the decision says.
Joanne Crawford, the hospital's head of human resources, testified that all of those whose jobs were cut were offered positions as general staff nurses, and some were given other opportunities to fill vacant positions. She said some accepted and others resigned.  Kara Bennorth, a hospital spokeswoman, said yesterday that 10 of the nurses whose positions were eliminated still are with the hospital.

Reach Melissa Klein at mklein@thejournalnews.com or 914-694-5063. 

           Page views:  since   8/4/04