National Union of Healthcare Workers v. Childrens Hospital & Research Center at…

Background

Children’s Hospital & Research Center at Oakland operates a pediatric hospital and has been affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco since 2013. The Hospital is known as UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland. The National Union of Healthcare Workers represents three Hospital bargaining units: Service and Technical, Business Office Clerical, and Professionals. Each unit is governed by a separate collective bargaining agreement, or CBA.

The Hospital planned to transition employees to employment with UCSF. The planned transition date was extended to July 6, 2025. The Union sought an injunction preventing the Hospital from proceeding while an arbitrator considered whether the transition was allowed under the CBAs. The Hospital said it would bargain over the effects of the transition but would not bargain about or arbitrate whether the transition could occur.

The CBAs recognized the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in each unit. They also contained provisions concerning subcontracting and transfers made to avoid the agreements. Section 1.5, titled “Notice of Successorship,” addressed a transfer of the Hospital’s ownership or operation to the University of California, UCSF, or certain other public entities. It required written notice, good-faith bargaining over the effects, and specified protections for employees’ jobs, compensation, and benefits.

The Service and Technical and Business Office Clerical CBAs expired on April 30, 2025. The Professionals CBA remained in effect until August 31, 2025. The Hospital reported that 47 employees elected voluntary severance instead of becoming UCSF employees and that the remaining employees would be employed by UCSF without loss of pay and with substantially similar benefits, including credit for their prior service. The Union made general assertions about potentially inferior working conditions and benefits but did not argue that the Hospital failed to meet Section 1.5’s notice, effects-bargaining, or employee-protection requirements.

Legal standard

The court treated the Union’s request as a motion for a preliminary injunction because the Hospital had notice and an opportunity to brief the request. The Union sought what courts often call a “reverse Boys Markets injunction”—an order preventing an employer from taking threatened action affecting employment conditions while a labor dispute proceeds to arbitration.

The court stated that such relief generally requires a mandatory arbitration provision, an arbitrable dispute, a party prepared to arbitrate, and an injunction justified under ordinary fairness principles. The Hospital argued that an additional requirement applied: an express or implied promise to preserve the status quo pending arbitration. The court said that requirement did not independently defeat the Union’s request here and did not base its decision on that issue.

The court also rejected the Hospital’s argument that proceedings before the California Public Employment Relations Board required the federal court to decline jurisdiction. The court found that the Hospital had not shown that abstention—declining to decide a case because of another proceeding—was appropriate. The court also stated that its decision did not rest on a separate Norris-LaGuardia Act provision concerning work or employment relationships.

Court’s analysis

For the Service and Technical and Business Office Clerical units, the court held that the CBAs would not be in effect on July 6, 2025. Preparing for the transition while those agreements were still in effect did not make the later transition a breach. Because the agreements had expired, the transition could not breach them going forward, and there was nothing under those agreements to arbitrate concerning the propriety of the transition.

For the Professionals unit, the court said the CBA remained in effect but that the Union had to show that its position in arbitration was sufficiently sound to make arbitration more than futile. The court found that the Union had not met that showing. In the court’s view, Section 1.5 expressly allowed the Hospital to transfer the Hospital’s operation, in whole or in part, to UCSF if the Hospital provided the required notice, engaged in good-faith effects bargaining, and took the required steps to protect employee job security, compensation, and benefits.

The Union argued that, during negotiations, the Hospital had agreed that Section 1.5 would not give it a unilateral right to require employees to become UCSF employees in circumstances like these. The court found that the Union’s negotiator offered only a conclusory assertion supporting that interpretation. The court also found that the Union had not explained why Section 1.5 would depend on the Hospital ceasing to exist as a separate legal entity, noting that the provision referred to “any transfer of ownership or operation” in whole or in part.

The court concluded that the Hospital was entitled under the plain language of Section 1.5 to carry out the July 6, 2025 transition. It further concluded that the Union’s claims concerning the recognition, no-subcontracting, and anti-evasion provisions failed because those provisions did not override the Hospital’s rights under Section 1.5. The court noted that the Union effectively conceded those provisions would not be breached if Section 1.5 authorized the transition.

Disposition

The court denied the Union’s request for injunctive relief. The order did not decide the Union’s separately filed motion to compel arbitration, which was set for July 17, 2025.