Court Opinion

ID: 9587486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:22:44.725415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:03.496235
License: Public Domain

Steffen, J.,
dissenting:
With due respect to my colleagues in the majority, I find no *598basis whatsoever for concluding that the UMC policy concerning the clinical ladder program was incorporated in or to be affected by, any aspect of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. I therefore dissent from the majority’s ruling.
Although I have no quarrel with the legal authorities cited by the majority, I fail to see how they apply to the instant case. As I see it, the primary flaw in the majority’s position does not necessarily stem from their diffident, recurrent conclusion that “we cannot say with positive assurance” that the clinical ladder program or aspects thereof together with other unnamed UMC personnel policies were excluded from the ambit of the collective bargaining agreement. Rather, the major problem derives from the majority’s root premise that whatever personnel policies were in being prior to the collective bargaining agreement, and continued thereafter, were included within the purview of the agreement whether specifically identified therein or not. Thus, the majority proclaim that “UMC very possibly had many personnel policies which it continued after signing this [collective bargaining] agreement, even though the policies were not specifically enumerated in the agreement. We cannot say with positive assurance that the clinical ladder program was not such a policy.” (Majority opn., p. 7.) There are at least three obvious flaws in the quoted conclusion. First, we can say “with positive assurance” that the clinical ladder program was continued after the signing of the collective bargaining agreement despite the fact that it was not enumerated therein. Second, the only inference to be drawn from the majority’s conclusion is that all UMC personnel policies commencing before and continuing beyond the date of the collective bargaining agreement were within its ambit whether enumerated therein or not. Third, the effect of the majority’s premise is to render meaningless Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement which clearly purports to reserve, “without negotiation” the sole right and authority in UMC to, inter alia “[promulgate, revise and modify rules, regulations and personnel policies.” (Emphasis supplied.)
UMC’s clinical ladder program was indisputably a personnel policy which it established and promulgated. It was never made the subject of collective bargaining and was never included by name or otherwise within the collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, I believe it can be concluded “with positive assurance” that the program could never properly be considered to be the subject of a grievance within the purview of the collective bargaining agreement.
Article 10 of the agreement defines “grievance” to mean “a dispute between an employee(s) and/or the Association and UMC *599over the interpretation or application of the express terms of this Agreement.” The rights and entitlements of UMC’s nurses under the clinical ladder program may not be properly resolved by looking to the interpretation and application of any express terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement does not include, comprehend, or otherwise address the program, expressly or by an extension of its “spirit.” It was established and promulgated as UMC personnel policy number IV-421, for which UMC retained sole right and authority to operate, revise and modify. Moreover, I would also state “with positive assurance” that the language of Article 5 (2) which states that “[a]ll rights and responsibilities of UMC not specifically modified by this agreement shall remain the functions of UMC,” means that all such rights and responsibilities shall remain in the exclusive province of UMC rather than the province of the agreement. To conclude otherwise effectively emasculates the paragraph.
I should pause here to note that the majority appears to confuse the rights of the complaining nurses to their entitlements under the clinical ladder program with their rights under the collective bargaining agreement. In my opinion, the two are mutually exclusive. Because the clinical ladder program was an aspect of UMC personnel policy outside the «purview of the collective bargaining agreement, any rights denied the nurses by UMC under that program would be subject to remedies dehors the agreement. To conclude that the clinical ladder program is not subject to the collective bargaining agreement is not tantamount to concluding that the nurses are left without a remedy if their rightful entitlements under the program have been illegally denied them by UMC.
Finally, the majority concludes that “arguably” paragraphs one and four of Article 28 pertaining to training and education support CCPEA’s contention that the clinical ladder program and the individual contracts emanating therefrom are incorporated within the collective bargaining agreement. I suggest that the argument, which attributes a substantial measure of ineptitude to the drafters of the agreement, is disingenuous. Article 28 generically commits UMC to provide education and training programs and policies, including in-service programs, that will encourage and assist employees in increasing and expanding their skills and knowledge. There is no provision within the article that specifies or implies a responsibility on the part of UMC to establish or maintain any particular program or method for accomplishing such training and education. As a result, any bona fide issue arising from paragraphs one and four of Article 28 would be limited to whether or not UMC was providing such training and education. In the instant case, all issues pertain to the clinical *600ladder program and whether it is incorporated within the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, paragraph seven of Article 28 has no relationship to the clinical ladder program because it was strictly voluntary, and the latter paragraph applies only to educational programs where attendance is required by UMC.
The majority pays little attention and no heed to the detailed expression of the parties set forth under Article 36 entitled “Entire Agreement.” Although the entire article has substantial relevance to this appeal and its proper disposition, I quote only the last two sentences of the article which read as follows: “All rights and duties of both parties are specifically expressed in this Agreement and such expression is all-inclusive. Any benefit existing prior to this Agreement is negated unless specifically incorporated into this Agreement.” (Emphasis added.) It seems unnecessary to comment on the natural meaning of the phrases “specifically expressed in this Agreement” and “such expression is all-inclusive.” Nevertheless, despite the clarity of language and its obvious intendment, the majority has incorporated therein subject categories either excluded from or not specifically expressed in the agreement, thus drastically expanding its ambit beyond the intention of the parties.
I submit that the real thrust of the majority opinion amounts to an irrelevant, misguided, ultra-jurisdictional policy decision superimposing on the parties’ collective bargaining agreement an expansive, non-specific and philosophical nature. Thus, the majority concludes that “[Requiring these nurses to pursue individual contract actions in court against UMC, instead of arbitration, hardly seems conducive to good labor-management relations or the efficient disposition of controversies.” Obviously, the logical extension of the majority’s reasoning eliminates the prospect of any activity or relationship between UMC and its employees that will not be subject to arbitration under the agreement. Moreover, it would seem that no Association or UMC policy or activity that may be of concern to the other, will be immune from the reach of the agreement irrespective of its language.
I suggest that the majority has resorted to such verbalistic havens as: (1) lack of positive assurance; (2) arguable possibilities; and (3) policies not conducive to healthy labor-management relationships and the efficient resolution of disputes, to justify re-writing the dimensions of the parties’ agreement. Having manufactured uncertainty, they then invoke the presumption that the law requires arbitration whenever doubt exists as to its application. The package thus assembled by the majority obscures the fact that these parties obviously never intended to include the *601clinical ladder program within the scope of their collective bargaining agreement. Indeed, it is not there!
Because I am fearful that the majority’s reconstructive surgery on the collective bargaining agreement will produce more mischief than good, and is, I suggest, an improper exercise of this court’s jurisdiction, I am compelled to dissent.