Hillhaven Oakland Nursing etc. Center v. Health Care Workers Union, AFL-CIO

• Decision Date: 02 January 1996
• Docket Number: No. A067972,AFL-CIO,A067972
• Citation: 41 Cal.App.4th 846,49 Cal.Rptr.2d 11
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2147, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 117, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 165 HILLHAVEN OAKLAND NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HEALTH CARE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 250,, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 11

49 Cal.Rptr.2d 11

41 Cal.App.4th 846, 151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2147,

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 117,

96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 165

HILLHAVEN OAKLAND NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HEALTH CARE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 250, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. A067972.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Jan. 2, 1996.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1996.

Review Denied April 18, 1996.

[41 Cal.App.4th 848] William A. Sokol, Oakland, for Defendant/Appellant.

Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, Harry G. Lewis, Bradley W. Kampas, San Francisco, Keith M. Sherman, Concord, for Plaintiff/Respondent.

KLINE, Presiding Justice.

INTRODUCTION

During the course of a labor dispute, respondent Hillhaven Oakland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Hillhaven) sought and obtained a preliminary injunction against appellant Health Care Workers Union, Local 250, AFL-CIO (Local 250) restricting the number of union representatives who might enter Hillhaven's Webster Street facility at any time and regulating the place and manner in which Local 250 representatives might speak with employees or others both in and outside the facility. Specifically, Local 250 representatives were restrained from:

"(a) Having more than two (2) representatives in the facility at 3030 Webster Street, Oakland, California at any time;

"(b) Conducting Union business or speaking with employees or other persons about Union business in the presence of or within hearing distance of any resident(s);

"(c) Entering resident personal rooms at any time and entering any area used for the purpose of resident therapy or recreational activities while residents are present; or

"(d) Speaking or carrying on conversation(s) inside or outside the facility which, due to its unreasonable tone or noise level, disturbs, annoys or bothers residents; or in any other way disturbing the peace inside the facility."

Local 250 appeals, contending the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., preempts the state court's jurisdiction to issue such an injunction. If preemption is not found, appellant argues the injunction is overbroad and vague so as to unconstitutionally restrain freedom of speech.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Respondent Hillhaven is a corporation which operates a convalescent and nursing home facility in Oakland, California. Appellant Local 250 is the certified bargaining representative of employees at Hillhaven. On July 28, 1994, Local 250 and Hillhaven were in the process of negotiating for a successor master collective bargaining agreement as the then current agreement was due to expire on December 1, 1994. ¹

On July 28, 1994, at approximately 2:00 p.m., a group of approximately 25 to 30 representatives and agents of Local 250 entered the nursing home through the facility's back door. They began to distribute flyers to employees, residents and their families and spread throughout the facility to meet with employees. These meetings were described as "noisy" and "disruptive" in declarations filed by various Hillhaven supervisorial personnel in support of Hillhaven's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order.

One of the group informed the director of nursing that they were union representatives who wanted to see the building.

As they dispersed through the building, the following actions were observed by Hillhaven supervisors:

In the kitchen area, the director of nutritional services heard a "lot of noise" from the middle of the kitchen and saw approximately six representatives talking to members of the dietary staff. While doing so, the representatives held the kitchen door open, in violation of a state law requiring the kitchen door remain closed at all times except for food services purposes. Upon the appearance of the director, four of the representatives left quickly and joined a larger group of people walking by the hallway. This group of approximately 20 people filled the entire corridor and "were being disruptive to the facility because of their talking and shuffling." (Declaration of Gordon Parberry, director of nutritional services.)

Rehabilitation director Deirdre O'Bryan noticed from 10 to 15 people walking around the hall across from the occupational therapy room blocking and clogging the hallways. The group walked from the north nurses station toward the south nurses station, spread across the width of the hallway approximately 10 feet deep. The group was loud and disruptive to the delivery of patient care at the time, because many of them were looking into rooms of the facility, including the therapy room, causing O'Bryan and others to stop what they were doing. At this point O'Bryan went to assist a patient reposition his chair in the south dining room, and she noticed four or five representatives "staring glaringly at us while myself [and three other employees] delivered care to one of the residents. This was very upsetting because I felt they were scrutinizing us."

For approximately five minutes, one of the union representatives walked down the hall taking pictures of staff and residents. Thereafter, one of the residents was very upset because she was afraid they might have taken pictures of her. Another visibly frightened and upset resident came to the office manager three times during the hours after the incident and told her " 'these people are going to shoot me.' " (Declaration of Office Manager Nancy Sidrer.)

Approximately five union representatives were seen talking to four staff members in the south dining Room, which is for use by residents and their families only. Three representatives were seen leaving literature on a table in the occupational therapy department, which is a restricted area to the union and other outsiders. (Declaration of Director of Occupational Therapy Gloria Canlas.)

The large group walking throughout the facility disturbed residents, who seemed surprised at such a large group of people walking around. Union representatives were heard asking residents whether the CNA's (certified nursing assistants) were taking good care of them. (Declaration of Magdalena Kubalska, resident care coordinator.)

During one resident's speech therapy, a female union member entered the resident's room without knocking, placed a flyer on the table between the resident and his treating therapist and told the resident and the therapist to read the flyer. Other than employees and designated visitors, nonrelatives are not allowed in resident's rooms without permission. The incident was "highly disruptive" to the resident's therapy because the resident was highly distractible and was unable to complete his therapy after the woman left. The noise made by the group walking throughout the facility's halls was also disruptive to this resident, making him unable to focus on the tasks before him. (Declaration of Lisa De Armond, director of speech pathology.)

At approximately 2:30 p.m., a large group gathered "outside in front of the building on the sidewalk chanting, yelling, waving their arms and cheering." A resident standing near the front door was very upset and asked "whether the Union was going to shoot her." (Declaration of Karen Ansell, director of nursing.)

As summarized by Hillhaven Facility Administrator Cherese Holland, many patients were confused and frightened by the noise and remained upset for hours after the demonstration. The demonstrators refused to leave the building until they were ordered out by the police.

Hillhaven is strictly regulated by federal regulations, as well as state Health and Safety regulations. Noise levels in the building and hallway accessibility are strictly regulated to ensure resident comfort and safety. ( 2) Hallways are only eight feet wide. Residents in wheelchairs often sit in the hallway to socialize and residents walk with the help of an aide through the hallway for exercise. Medicine carts must be kept in hallways during rounds.

The following day, Hillhaven filed a complaint for injunction and damages based upon the foregoing conduct and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO issued later that same day.

On September 8, 1994, a hearing was held on the "Order to Show Cause for the Preliminary Injunction." Thereafter, on September 16, 1994, the superior court issued a preliminary injunction. On November 4, 1994, Local 250 filed its answer to Hillhaven's complaint for injunction and damages. On November 17, 1994, Local 250 filed the instant appeal of the grant of the preliminary injunction.

Meanwhile, on August 19, 1994, after obtaining the TRO, but before the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Hillhaven filed a charge against Local 250 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), based upon the July 28th incident. This charge alleged "Within the past six months, [Local 250], has restrained, coerced and intimidated employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and has restrained, coerced and intimidated an employer in the selection of its representati[ves] for the purposes of collective bargaining." ³ Following its investigation and determination that the charge had merit, the regional director issued a "Complaint and Notice of Hearing" on September 26, 1994. ⁴

Thereafter, the matter was settled. ⁵ Local 250 agreed that its members "will not intentionally interfere with or disrupt the normal operation" of Hillhaven's Oakland facility "by, without permission, entering the facility and roaming about, leafletting, chatting with employees in patient areas and talking to patients. [This does not preclude lawful picketing outside the facility in connection with a labor dispute nor does it preclude normal practice, as permitted by the contract, regarding servicing of the collective bargaining agreement.]" (Settlement Agreement and Notice to Members.) The Agreement also required the union to post a notice to this effect at the Union Hall and at the employer's place...