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

Background

The National Union of Healthcare Workers brought the action to require arbitration over whether Children’s Hospital & Research Center at Oakland could transition its workers to become employees of the University of California, San Francisco while remaining a separate entity. The Union relied on collective bargaining agreements covering employees in three units: Professionals (Pros), Service and Technical (S&T), and Business Office Clerical (BOC).

The Union had also sought a preliminary injunction stopping the transition, but the court previously denied that request. The opinion states that the former Hospital employees apparently became UCSF employees and that most, if not all, were represented in their current employment by unions that already represented UCSF health-care workers. The Union nevertheless continued pursuing its motion to compel arbitration.

Professionals agreement

The court found that the Pros collective bargaining agreement was in effect when the transition occurred. The agreement required disputes involving the application or interpretation of the agreement to go through a grievance process and, if unresolved, arbitration.

The Hospital argued that the Union’s Pros disputes were not arbitrable because, in the Hospital’s view, a provision identified as Section 1.5 authorized the transition and therefore left no viable claims under the other agreement provisions. The court treated that argument as addressing the merits of the Union’s claims, rather than whether the disputes fell within the arbitration clause.

The court concluded that the Union’s allegations of breaches of the Pros agreement fell within the clause’s broad language covering “any problem arising in connection with the application or interpretation” of the agreement. It held that the Union’s arguments about the meaning and application of Section 1.5 were for the arbitrator to decide. The court therefore granted the motion to compel arbitration as to the Pros agreement.

S&T and BOC agreements

The court found that the S&T and BOC agreements expired on April 30, 2025, before the transition. Expiration does not automatically eliminate arbitration of every dispute connected to an expired agreement. The court explained that arbitration may continue when a dispute involves events occurring before expiration, when a post-expiration action infringes a right that accrued or vested under the agreement, or when the disputed contractual right survives expiration under ordinary contract-interpretation principles.

The court concluded that the Union did not establish any of those circumstances. It did not argue that the agreements required the Hospital to refrain from transitioning employees after the agreements expired, and it did not identify an accrued or vested right that the transition infringed. The court also found that the Union’s cited pre-expiration events involved planning for and communicating about an action that would occur after expiration. Because the agreements had expired when the transition occurred, the court found no viable breaches to arbitrate.

The court therefore denied the motion to compel arbitration as to the S&T and BOC agreements.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel arbitration: it granted the motion for the Union’s Pros grievances and denied it for the S&T and BOC grievances. Because the requested relief was an order compelling arbitration, the Clerk was directed to close the file. The order stated that a party could move to reopen the file if further court proceedings became necessary during or after arbitration.