Riverside Healthcare System, LP, doing business as Riverside Community Hospital filed a Petition to Confirm an Arbitration Award against Service Employees International Union, Local 121 RN. The Hospital asked the court to confirm arbitration Opinions and Awards between the parties.

The Arbitrator found SEIU Local 121 RN struck for permissible reasons, related to staffing issues, and impermissible reasons, over safety issues related to COVID-19, which was not allowed under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.Further, the Arbitrator found the pre-strike flyer SEIU Local 121 RN issued to its members expanded the purpose of the strike beyond the staffing dispute to include the availability of Personal Protective Equipment and other staffing concerns.

On May 31, 2024, the Arbitrator issued a second written opinion awarding the Hospital damages in the amount of $6,262,192.11.

In the Motion to Confirm, the Riverside Community Hospital argued (1) the awards draw their essence from the CBA; (2) the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of the issues submitted; and (3) the awards do not conflict with public policy. Therefore there is no basis to vacate the Awards issued by the Arbitrator, and the Court should confirm the Awards and enter judgment against the SEIU Local 121 RN in the amount of $6,262,192.11.

In the Motion to Vacate, SEIU Local 121 RN argued (1) the awards do not draw their essence from the CBA; (2) the Arbitrator exceeded the scope of her authority because (i) she impermissibly added to the CBA and (ii) she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter; and (3) the awards conflict with three public policies. Therefore, SEIU Local 121 RN argues the Arbitrator’s awards should be vacated.

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States District Judge found no basis to vacate the arbitration awards in the case of Riverside Healthcare System, LP, d/b/a Riverside Community Hospital v. Service Employees International Union, Local 121 RN -EDCV 24-1316-KK-PVCx (January 2025).

The Court found that the awards do not violate public policy. SEIU Local 121 RN has maintained that the labor strike was solely “over [Petitioner’s] failure to provide appropriate staffing levels,” as permitted by the CBA, and any discussion of “PPE, COVID-19, or other abnormally dangerous conditions . . . did not convert the staffing strike into a non-staffing strike.”

The Arbitrator rejected the SEIU Local 121 RN position, finding the strike was for both permissible (staffing) and impermissible (PPE and COVID-19) reasons under the CBA. “Respondent’s Motion to Vacate is ground, in part, on the awards supposed conflict with standing public policy: (1) § 502 of the Taft-Hartley Act; (2) California Labor Code Section 6311; and (3) § 301 of the LMRA.”

“None of these arguments were asserted during the arbitration, hence, this Court will not consider them at this stage….see McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731, 733-34 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding arbitrators exhaust their right to review disputes after they issue a final award); see also United Steelworkers, 74 F.3d 169 at 174. Further, Respondent failed to meet its obligation to identify the specific laws “

According to a report by Beckers’ Hospital Review Rosanna Mendez, executive director for SEIU 121RN, stood by the union’s belief that hospital nurses were within their rights to strike.

“The union and its members will never stop fighting and speaking out to protect patient care and to ensure safe working conditions in healthcare, including when we see troubling patterns of management decision-making at Riverside Community Hospital,” Ms. Mendez said in a statement shared with Becker’s.

“We disagree with the way that HCA has characterized the strike both generally and in the appeal process, and we disagree with this current ruling around the arbitration. As such, nurses will continue to weigh our next legal options along with how to best raise awareness about the many concerns that frontline nurses have about the HCA business model above and beyond this one particular ruling, which we consider to be at odds with the facts on the ground and the broader interests of patients and the public.”