news@dailylobo.com
@StephCHoover
UNMH will not negotiate with a union of employees that filed a complaint regarding mandatory flu vaccines for hospital staff last month, according to a counter-statement filed by the hospital.
In the counter-statement to the UNM Labor Management Relations Board on Monday, UNMH argues that “the union wholly fails to demonstrate that the union or its members will suffer irreparable injury by implementation of the policy” because the vaccines are free of charge. The UNMH administration calls on to the board to dismiss the case, according to the statement.
On Oct. 29, the District 1199 New Mexico, a local union of health care employees, filed the Prohibitive Practices Complaint against UNMH after it decided to require employees to receive a flu shot by Dec. 1.
UNMH’s counter-statement states that the Centers for Disease Control recommends that all health care workers receive the influenza vaccine to reduce risks to patients.
“The hospital’s primary purpose being to protect the safety of its patients, the failure of its employees to become immunized to influenza actually presents a far greater injury than requiring that hospital employees comply with its policy,” the report states.
The counter-statement also argues that there are no contract agreements specifically limiting the hospital from implementing vaccine programs as it deems necessary. UNMH writes that the vaccines are a nonnegotiable management right under employees’ contracts.
The Labor Board will make its decision on Dec. 12 at the earliest, according to the counter-statement.
UNMH representatives declined to comment further on the case.
Because employees are mandated to receive the flu shots by Dec. 1, the union is planning to file a temporary restraining order to extend protection for unvaccinated employees until after the case is heard, said Bill Brown, the administrative director for the union. They will likely need to do this through Bernalillo’s district court, he said.
Brown said employees did not give up the right to negotiate regarding mandatory vaccines with the hospital in their contract, and that is the issue at stake, not whether or not employees should receive the vaccine.
“The past practice has always been that it is not mandatory, and they’ve changed the terms of employment, saying that people can be terminated for this, and they are saying all new hires have to do this,” Brown said. “So it is absolutely a term and condition of employment. Therefore by our understanding of labor law, it is subject to mandatory bargaining.”
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
As it stands, hospital employees can be exempt if they are proven to have an allergy or a religious reason for not receiving flu shot. These employees will be required to wear a mask.
Brown said the union wants employees who elect not to get the shot for personal reasons to be able to wear masks. He said employees should be covered under the Patient Self Determination Act, which would allow them to refuse treatment, because by receiving the shot, they become patients, too.
“People are having to make a decision on whether not they want to risk their health on a shot or get terminated. They have put them in a terrible position,” Brown said. “So, many people are opting to leave, retire and quit. I think it’s silly that you would want to terminate people (when) they are willing to wear a mask.”
But Brown said he doesn’t believe the case will be dismissed, despite UNMH’s counter-statement.
Brown said he still hopes the hospital will reconsider and sit down with the union to negotiate the terms and conditions.
“We’re just highly disappointed in the management’s tactics and they’re bullying the employees at this point in what they are doing,” Brown said. “It’s really not acceptable, and it’s not the way business should be done in the 21st century.”
