Opinion
No. 181098
Decided January 9, 1967.
Labor unions — Labor dispute with hospital association — Right and duty of hospital association to operate unimpeded — Right of union to organize employees — Peaceful picketing — Equitable relief.
1. A hospital association, during a labor dispute, has the right, in its duty to the public, to be able to operate free and unimpeded by acts which threaten to disturb and hinder its means to serve the regular and emergency public health needs of the community.
2. A labor union, in a dispute with a hospital association, has the right to attempt to organize hospital employees, and to carry its case to the public by all lawful means, including the peaceful picketing of hospital premises.
3. Equitable relief is available, in a labor dispute, not only to a hospital association to see that its services continue uninterruptedly, but also to a labor union to ensure that its rights to collective bargaining are not thwarted.
Mr. John Weed Powers, Messrs. Manchester, Bennett, Powers Ullman and Messrs. Thompson, Hine Flory, for plaintiff.
Mr. Eugene Green and Messrs. Green, Schiavoni Murphy, for defendants.
This action concerns the filing by an osteopathic hospital of a petition in which it seeks a temporary and permanent restraining order against a labor union, its officers and members for alleged acts of conduct, tortious in nature, which the hospital claims has jeopardized its ability to serve the public. The relief sought, and with which we are concerned in this hearing, is a temporary restraining order designed to exclude picketing at the institution altogether or, in the alternative, the limiting of picketing to the extent that the operation and conduct of the institution, its employees and those doing business with it are in no wise hindered.
To this petition has been filed, by the defendant union, its officers and members, an answer and cross-petition. The answer, after certain obvious admissions, and a general denial, raises the defense that plaintiff hospital is not entitled to the relief sought, because, inter alia, it does not enter this court of equity with clean hands. In other words, those who seek equitable relief must have acted in such fair and open manner that would entitle them to such relief. In its cross-petition the union cites acts and conduct of plaintiff designed to interfere with and prevent defendant employees from exercising their right to strike and engage in peaceful picketing of plaintiff's premises. Defendants thereupon ask for themselves equitable aid of this court in a temporary restraining order against these acts and, upon final hearing, a permanent injunction against the hospital.
The court recognizes that there are rights in each side of this matter. The hospital association has the right, in its duty to the public, to be able to operate free and unimpeded by acts which threaten and hinder its means to serve the regular and emergency public health needs of the community.
On the other hand, the union has a right to attempt to organize hospital employees, and further to carry its case to the public by all lawful means — including the exercise of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech — in this case peaceful picketing and demonstration, if you will — but not, however, in such a manner that it constitutes a brake on or threat to the public need for health services heretofore spoken of.
The court is disappointed in the showing on the part of the hospital concerning its conduct during the period immediately prior to and at the beginning of the strike. It is questionable, from the evidence adduced at the hearing of the matter: (1) that all reasonable means were taken by hospital authorities to resolve the labor problems presented to it; (2) that all reasonable means to provide for emergency supplies of food, drugs, oxygen — whatever — were taken, when it knew or should have known of the situation that was about to be thrust, rightly or wrongly, upon it; (3) that all reasonable means were taken by it to limit its requirements under the circumstances — there was no showing that normal non-emergency admissions were reduced — that patients in convalescent status who could have been so processed were released to their homes — than any but arbitrary refusal to discuss problems with their employees was adopted as hospital policy.
This court recognizes, however, that the public interest requires that this hospital, if possible, be kept open and running, and this is the responsibility of both sides to this dispute.
The union and its adherents on its part must recognize this hospital operation to be an especial one — one based upon humanity and consideration of others — not to be handled the same as an industrial giant or even a small proprietary business. The public is vitally interested in the care of the sick and injured, and those actually being cared for together with those close to them who seek such care demand special consideration in which the public concurs. Therefore, usual and ordinary enthusiasm and zeal of labor people in their drive for union recognition, and the means customarily and usually employed by them in gaining these ends, must be restricted in situations such as this where, however, bona fide means are employed by the opponent side as well.
It is therefore the judgment of this court that a temporary restraining order issue as to all parties in the following respects, to wit: (1) That parties hereto arrange forthwith to meet and arrange a schedule, a copy of which shall within 48 hours be filed with this court, covering emergency requirements of plaintiff hospital, how same are to be effected, and indicating concurrence of defendants in their execution; (2) that defendant Local 47, Building Service and Maintenance Workers Union, be restrained and enjoined from mass picketing, but that picketing and demonstration be permitted in a limited manner at three locations: The Florencedale Avenue entrance, the Broadway entrance and the Doctors' Parking lot entrance. The court limits specifically the pickets at each such entrance to four, with the further provision that defendants, pickets and sympathizers do not congregate or park their vehicles within 200 feet of the hospital premises in any direction; (3) that defendants refrain from interfering with, obstructing or hindering plaintiff, its officers, agents, employees in the performance of their duties or services in the operation or conduct of plaintiff's hospital, or preventing or attempting to prevent any person or vehicle from freely entering or leaving hospital premises and from trespassing upon or damaging property of plaintiff, its employees or persons having business with plaintiff at its hospital; (4) that plaintiff refrain from intimidation of employees through discharge or threat of discharge, by reason of such employees union or organizational activities, past or present. In the furtherance of equitable principles, or good faith, and because of the interest of the public not only in the operation of hospitals but that employee relations in such institutions be harmonious as a means of furthering good patient care and promoting patient recovery, the following is directed. (5) The plaintiff use all reasonable means of resolving its present labor differences with defendants. The court fails to understand, in this regard, past failure of both to communicate in the public interest, and to reach some mutually agreeable status.
The offices of this court remain continually open for further proceedings and to accomplish the above-indicated ends, and this order may be modified at any time.
Each party to post bond in the amount of $1,000. It is so ordered.
Judgment accordingly.