The secret ballot to join the American Federation of Teachers, Vermont union passed 43-41 among physicians, registered nurses, social workers and others at the centers’ eight regional practices, according to an emailed statement from AFT-Vermont.
However, a second group of so-called “nonprofessional” staff — medical assistants and health care support staff — defeated the unionization effort by a vote of 47-32. But organizers of the effort alleged the administration unfairly impacted the election process.
“We started with a clear majority who supported our union,” medical assistant and union organizer Megan Cronkite said in an emailed statement Friday morning. “However, weeks of management intimidation, threats and promises took its toll, and we did not win today, but we are not giving up.”
The union, called Community Health United, is considering filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board due to “illegal threats and promises made by the CHCB administration, which tainted the election process,” the statement said.
David Turner, the acting resident officer for the NLRB’s Buffalo, N.Y., district — which covers Burlington — said either party must file an objection within seven days, triggering an administrative hearing with cross examination. An NLRB officer would issue findings of fact on issues of election interference and possibly call for another vote, Turner said.
Results are generally certified within seven days, according to Turner, but won’t be until any potential complaint is resolved.
Kim Anderson, CHCB’s director of development and communications, was shocked to learn about the union’s allegations.
“Wow,” she said. “I’m actually very, very proud of how we went along with this process. It’s surprising to me, but obviously, they’re our staff, and we want to work with them, and we want to make sure everybody has the education and knows the impact of this decision. That’s been our only focus.”
Anderson said the administration distributed flyers and emails prior to the vote. One of these emails, obtained by Seven Days, says unions can make promises even if they can’t guarantee them: “The law assumes you know when something is too good to be true,” it says.
Other emails show the union promised employees “greater transparency, a seat at the decision-making table and pay equity.”
A health center employee told Seven Days last month that the unionization effort began over a pay discrepancy and expanded to include other concerns about working conditions. The employee, who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution at work, said the union effort seemed rushed.
Health center administration said at the time that a union drive would disrupt ongoing efforts to unburden medical staff who are doing more with less, an issue in primary health care nationwide. The organization has worked with a consultant on such issues for the last year, said Dr. Peter Gunther, CHCB’s chief medical officer.
In the emailed statement, Solomon said the newly formed union will negotiate a contract “that will make CHCB better for employees and the patients we serve.”
Formed in 1971, CHCB sees 30,000 patients a year, according to Gunther.
Correction, May 10, 2019: A previous version of this story misidentified Solomon’s job title.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Well, I’ll just say that describing a majority as “razor-thin” is slanted reporting. When the vote came for The Mall (Cityspace) it only won by 4%. In this case (the 84 voters at CHCB) it comes out to 3.36%. So Cityplace won by a razor-thin margin too. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by less than 3%. People don’t even call that one thin, they just say she won – and the Court voted Trump in. The electoral vote for Trump – well, it wasn’t thin at all.
I hope we hear more about the second vote in this case.
Well, I’ll just say that describing a 43-41 vote as razor-thin does not strike me as “slanted” reporting. Thanks.
Correction. Andrea Solomon is NOT a physician. She is a physician assistant. Big difference.
Thanks, @Stephen Baad. We’ve corrected the story!
Thanks, I’ve changed my mind on the whole thing!
[Actually I just think that we get spin on these figures at times. This one is not not an egregious error. It’s just the way I see things.]
Please explain to me why the union organizers would Selectively exclude those professionals with the most experience and diverse expertise from the discussion. Why consciously INCLUDE me in the bargaining unit but NOT seek out my voice, experience, or opinion in such a important
Decision for our organization. And lastly why would you withhold information from selected professional that organizers use to manipulate the outcome of the vote? If information existed that influenced collectively how organizing professionals would vote, This information should have been made available to all professionals.
Mark Pitcher MD
30 yrs experience
In watching this process to unfold at CHCB I have found that the administration went above and beyond to provide educational opportunity to all employees potentially eligible to participate in a union. Nonadminstration employees were given more than adequate opportunity to learn about unions. The administration even brought in external advisers to meet with employees for information sessions where the administration was purposefully absent. Employees were compensated for this time, at least at my clinic. I found the organization process to be rushed, intrusive, and very disruptive to our workplace culture which was quite good prior to the organization movement. I am shocked to have read about the potential complaint in this article. Despite the passage of the vote, I have not heard back from the union organizers about any questions or concerns I have put forth. This is further evidence that a union is not a good fit for all professionals at CHCB at this time.
Sam Russo ND, LAc, RMSK
17 years in practice.