By Frank P.L. Somerville

The Sun  (September 22, 1959)

The AFL-CIO yesterday proposed that any one of six mediators be allowed to judge whether a union seeking recognition by the Johns Hopkins Hospital has the backing of a majority of the employees in question.

Oliver W. Singleton, AFL-CIO Region 4 director, made the proposals in reply to objections by the hospital that the group seeking recognition did not represent a majority of some 1,000 nonprofessionals.

No NLRB Jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the National Labor Relations Board has no jurisdiction in disputes involving hospital workers, Mr. Singleton urged the Hopkins management to throw the question open to:

1. A proper agency of the State of Maryland.

2. An agent or agency of the mayor of Baltimore.

3. Any five clergymen.

4. A tripartite board made up of hospital directors, union representatives and impartial members.

5. A panel of three selected court judges.

6. Any single citizen acceptable to both parties.

Study Is Promised. Dr. Russell A. Nelson, director of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, said yesterday after receipt of Mr. Singleton's letter that "we will give his suggestions full and serious considerations.'

A previous exchange of correspondence was made public Saturday in which the AFL-CIO regional director asked the Hopkins to recognize Hospital Employees Local 491, while the hospital refused on the basis that the collective bargaining agent did not represent the majority it claimed.

Mr. Singleton wrote Dr. Nelson yesterday that "three points stand out" in the reasoning behind the hospital's refusal to deal with the union.

According to the union official, they are:

1. "Your improper refusal to recognize the collective bargaining rights of your lower paid workers, despite the fact that hospitals have historically and traditionally recognized the right of group association by nurses and doctors and other higher-paid professional workers."

2. "Your seeming shock that your employees may have joined an organization . . . empowered to question decisions that might affect working conditions. . . ."

Mr. Singleton said he believed that this point "will prove to be a passing thing" because "in a democratic society we all learn that there is no such thing as unquestioned authority" and that "workers in fact have the right to question management's unilateral decisions."

Joining Right Noted. "Your statement that you do not believe that a majority of the employees specified . . . have joined or desire to join the . . . union."

Quoting Dr. Nelson as saying that "we recognize the right of our employees to join unions," Mr. Singleton declared:

"Of course, such recognition in all reasonableness demands recognition of the attendant right of collective bargaining, otherwise it is completely incongruous."

The union spokesman then made his proposal that "the matter be solved in the same way the national Labor relations Board settles questions of representation" but with the substitution of any of the mentioned third parties for the NLRB.

Strike Seen "Unlikely." "We accept our responsibilities to the community and with sincere respect urge you to realize that your position violates the basic rights of a free people and could generate disharmony, inimitable to the public welfare," Mr. Singleton wrote Dr. Nelson.

As to the possibility of a strike at the medical institution, the union official said yesterday: "A strike is possible, of course, but I believe highly unlikely."

He then went on to say that strike could "only come about through the continued and persistent refusal" by the hospital to recognize the union.

Opposes "Pressures." In addition to stating his belief that the petitioning union did not represent a majority of the hospital employees concerned, the Hopkins director had written Mr. Singleton that dealing with a collective bargaining agent "would be incompatible with the sole purpose of our existence and inimitable to those we serve."

"Our service to the public has been developed in an atmosphere in which the board of trustees and the hospital administration have been free to pursue our objectives without the pressures exerted by organized groups contending for their own economic benefit," the hospital director had argued.

*   *   *   *   *

posted 24 July 2008