Johnson v. Christ Hospital, No. A--134

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 211 A.2d 376,45 N.J. 108
• Docket Number: No. A--134
• Decision Date: 21 June 1965
• Parties: Harrison JOHNSON, Margaret Wilber and Local 1199, Drug and Hospital Employees Union, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CHRIST HOSPITAL, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 108

45 N.J. 108 211 A.2d 376 Harrison JOHNSON, Margaret Wilber and Local 1199, Drug and
Hospital Employees Union, Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
CHRIST HOSPITAL, a corporation of the State of New Jersey,
Defendant-Appellant. No. A--134. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued June 1 and 3, 1965.
Decided June 21, 1965.

Page 110

[211 A.2d 377] Thomas L. Morrissey, Newark, for appellant (Virginia D. Fenton, Metuchen, on the brief, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, attorneys).

Sidney Reitman, Newark, for respondents (Kapelsohn, Lerner, Leuchter & Reitman, Newark, attorneys).

Julius B. Poppinga, Newark, for New Jersey Hospital Assn., amicus curiae (Woodruff J. English, Newark, of counsel, Alfred L. Ferguson, III, Newark, on the brief, McCarter & English, Newark, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed by Judge Matthews in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court. 84 N.J.Super. 541, 202 A.2d 874 (Ch.Div.1964).

In summary we hold:

1. Employees of nonprofit hospitals are presons in private employment within the meaning of Article I, $19 of the New Jersey Constitution.

2. As such employees, they have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with nonprofit hospital employers through representatives of their own choosing, such as labor unions, with respect to wages, hours and conditions of employment.

3. Nonprofit hospital employers are obliged to bargain collectively with properly chosen representatives of their employees

Page 111

with respect to wages, hours and conditions of employment. ¹

[211 A.2d 378] 4. Nonprofit hospital employers and the properly chosen representatives of their employees are obliged to bargain in good faith with the objective of achieving mutual understanding and agreement as to wages, hours and conditions of employment. Good faith bargaining includes an awareness on the part of both parties of the special nature of the enterprise in which they are engaged, and of the special relation each bears to the public.

5. The right of the nonprofit hospital employees to picket or to strike is not an issue in the case before us. Nor does the case present this problem: If such a right exists, in view of the unusual nature of the public interest in unimpeded operation of nonprofit hospitals, can and should the courts impose conditions precedent to, or qualifications on, exercise of the right so as to protect within fair and sensible limits the lives and health of the patients? Accordingly, we reserve these questions until they are specifically before us in a live controversy. ²

Page 112

[211 A.2d 379] 6. In the present state of the law the courts have the general power and the duty to determine justiciable labor disputes between nonprofit hospitals and their employees. At the same time we recognize that it is more expedient to have the day-to-day problems arising out of disputes concerning wages, hours and conditions of employment regulated by over-all legislation, then for the courts to set about the establishment of procedural and substantive precedents on a case-to-case basis.

Page 113

Some comment should be made about an additional point raised by the hospital. The trial court ordered a representation election to be held after a fixed period for informational and organizational activity. He specified rather generally that such activity might be directed to all employees except professional employees and those having supervisory duties. Implicit in this classification is that employees to whom such activity might be directed should form the bargaining unit and be entitled to vote in the election. The hospital complains

Page 114

that the composition of the appropriate unit was not tried out. It appears to suggest principally that the particular employees who should fall into the excluded class was not determined and that it did not have the opportunity to present evidence on the details of this subject. It seems to...