On June 23, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center nurses ended their unionization effort, according to a statement posted on Instagram by the Dartmouth Nurses Alliance. The statement cited a failure to obtain a supermajority of nurse support as the reason for the campaign’s end.
Nurses began organizing to unionize in March, prompting pushback from DHMC — which spent around $2 million on anti-union consultants, according to the statement.
“Unfortunately, while over 40% of nurses signed on in support, we did not reach [a supermajority] and do not currently see a path there given the number of departments without active nurse organizers, so we are ending the campaign for an NLRB election,” the DNA statement wrote.
In an email statement to The Dartmouth, a DHMC nurse — who requested anonymity due to fear of repercussions — wrote that he believes a vote for an NLRB election could have succeeded despite not achieving a supermajority of support, as people may have been hesitant to publicly support unionization. He added that DHMC’s “anti-union” reaction to the unionization effort made many worry about the safety of their jobs if they were “openly vocal in support of the union.”
“I think we had quiet support that would have reached a majority of nurses if the vote had gone ahead,” he wrote.
According to Service Employees International Union, Local 560 president Chris Peck, a unionization effort can trigger an NLRB election with 30% of employee support. However, a supermajority of support gives a unionization effort “the best odds of winning” the subsequent election, Peck said.
Peck explained that getting a supermajority was important because DHMC “will do an anti-union campaign” to try to “scare people [and] convince them not to join a union” during the time between when nurses initially signed on in support of unionization and the NLRB election.
DHMC chief nursing officer Tracy Galvin wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that the end of the campaign was a “positive development” for DHMC, nurses and patients.
“Although we respect the right of every nurse to have his or her opinion about unionization, we have always believed that a direct working relationship provides the best environment for the teamwork and flexibility that is so essential to nursing,” Galvin wrote.
The DNA statement alleged that anti-union consultants presented themselves as “neutral educators” and “impersonated federal Labor Board agents.”
The anti-union consultants employed tactics to discourage the unionization effort, the statement added.
“Anti-union consultants are even conducting mandatory ‘labor relations education’ sessions during new-hire orientations, wasting valuable training time on union busting,” the statement wrote.
Galvin wrote in a statement to the Valley News that the DNA’s description of the consultants was “grossly inaccurate.” She added that DHMC hired “outside experts” to educate nurses on “the process of unionization” and their rights.
“It was essential to provide the nurses with factual information to help them make an informed choice on this topic, which is unfamiliar to many people,” Galvin wrote to the Valley News.
According to Peck, DHMC is “totally anti-union” and has used anti-union tactics in the past.
Anti-union consultants try “to brainwash people” by saying “‘they just [want] your union dues’ [and] ‘you’re not going to have any say of what happens with you personally,’” Peck said.
The nurse wrote that DHMC management presented the consultants as “Department of Labor Union Educators.” The nurse — who did not attend meetings with the consultants due to scheduling conflicts — wrote that nursing leadership kept a log of which nurses attended or did not attend the meetings.
“I know that [the consultants] posed unions as corrupt and [said] that they would make scheduling more difficult for us,” the nurse wrote.
The nurse mentioned that the unionization effort also faced other challenges from nursing leadership. Nurses were not allowed to speak about the union during work, meeting flyers were removed from locker and break rooms and DHMC leadership provided resources to nurses with information about “why a union wouldn’t be a good fit for [Dartmouth Health],” he wrote.
He added that DHMC management was “able to plan their countermovements to limit our success” while the unionization effort was focused on more logistical work, such as holding votes.
“As the movement ate up more and more time, early supporters became tired of the lack of progress,” the nurse wrote. “Many of the meetings that we held became complaint sessions instead of planning sessions that used time wisely.”
Peck added that it is “really difficult” to organize “all the nurses in all the different departments” because DHMC is so large. Union organizers need to identify all employees and give them the right to vote in order to organize, Peck said.
The nurse noted that the unionization effort had some successes. According to the DNA statement, the unionization effort led to the “largest round of raises in living memory.” However, the raises were “inconsistent” and ranged from “2% to 18%, or none at all,” the DNA statement wrote.
The anonymous nurse said he believed the raises were less than what could have been reached with collective bargaining.
During the unionization effort, DHMC management promised to improve staffing and benefits, “share a transparent and fair wage scale” and give nurses “a genuine voice through shared governance and the night council,” according to the DNA statement.
“We do not trust that they will actually follow through long-term, so it is important that everyone watch and hold administration accountable,” the DNA statement wrote.
Galvin has yet to be more transparent with the pay structure, according to the nurse.
Peck said this unionization attempt has been the “closest” the nurses have been to successfully unionizing.
“I think it could definitely happen again, and maybe next time it would be successful,” Peck said. “It seems like every time they get their foot in the door up there … they get closer.”
