Friday, March 4, 2016

Judge Hands Victory to Hospital Association in Latest Legal Battle with SEIU-UHW's Dave Regan

Here's the latest news from the revealing legal battle between SEIU-UHW and the California Hospital Association (CHA).

Earlier this week, a Sacramento Superior Court judge handed the CHA a victory in its counter-suit against Dave Regan. The judge ordered SEIU-UHW to submit itself to binding arbitration due to its alleged violations of the secret "partnership" agreement Regan signed in 2014. Until now, Regan has refused to go before an arbitrator by claiming SEIU-UHW is no longer bound by the arbitration clause.

Not so, says the judge.

SEIU-UHW is liable for Regan's violations because Regan committed the violations while his secret deal with the CHA was still in effect, according to the judge’s ruling. (See a full copy below.)
Petitioner CHA seeks an Order under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 compelling arbitration before Arbitrator Richard Ahearn of three complaints brought by CHA against Respondent SEIU, United Healthcare Workers-West under the parties' written arbitration agreement… 
Petitioner California Hospital Association's Petition to Compel Arbitration is granted.

Which three complaints will now be sent to arbitration?

Here's where this lawsuit gets especially interesting. It reveals the dirty details of Regan's secret sell-out "partnership" deal with hospital CEOs. As part of this deal, for example, Regan agreed that SEIU-UHW would not "sponsor or support legislation, initiatives, or regulatory action adverse to the California hospital industry" or even make comments "raising concern about... executive compensation in health care."

What? A labor union that can't even whisper a peep about CEOs' fatcat salaries? Or support legislation that the Bosses don't like? Or file complaints against hospitals that violate patient-care standards? This, my friends, is SEIU-UHW -- the Bosses' union.

Here's how the judge describes three specific provisions of Regan's sellout deal (a.k.a., "the Code of Conduct") that’ll now be arbitrated:

CHA's First Complaint concerns an email UHW sent to a number of California hospital executives in November, making numerous derogatory statements about CHA and its leadership. CHA's November 15, 2015 arbitration complaint alleged that the derogatory language UHW used in the email violated Section I(B(I) of the Code of Conduct which requires that the parties' address their differences in a "positive manner" and refrain from "personal attacks or derogatory comments."
In its Second Complaint CHA alleged that UHW's sponsorship and support of the Hospital Executive Compensation Act of 2016 violated Sections 1(B) and 11(C) of the Code of Conduct by which UHW agreed not to "sponsor or support... initiatives adverse to the California hospital industry" or make comments "raising concern about... executive compensation in health care."
CHA's Third Complaint in arbitration concerns the lawsuit UHW brought against four CHA officers, accusing them of violating a fiduciary duty to CFC and committing various torts. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 2015-00187138-CU-CO-GDS) Among the Anti-Employer activities Section 1(B)(2) expressly prohibits is "litigation" that is "directed at or with respect to CHA... and any of [its] officers, directors, managers or shareholders." CHA contends that UHW's lawsuit breaches the provision…

Stay tuned.