Ljungberg v. St. Vincent Hosp.

1

KAREN LJUNGBERG Plaintiff, v. SAINT VINCENT HOSPITAL, TENET HEALTHCARE CORP., and TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 170, Defendants.

No. 4:23-CV-40166-MRG

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 18, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARGARET R. GUZMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

This is a labor dispute case. Plaintiff Karen Ljungberg --who works as a per diem mammography technologist at Defendant Saint Vincent Hospital^[1]-- has brought this action against Defendant-employer (Saint Vincent Hospital); Defendant-parent company (Tenet Healthcare Corporation “Tenet”)^[2], and Defendant- union (Teamsters Union Local 170, the “Union”).

In essence, Ljungberg alleges that Saint Vincent Hospital / Tenet wrongfully misclassified her on the salary step grid contained within the operative collective bargaining agreement by undervaluing her relevant prior experience and have subsequently failed to sufficiently rectify the error such that she is owed an accruing amount of backpay equal to at least $11,0971.51.^[3]She further claims that there has been retaliation for her persistence in seeking this backpay. Her eight causes of action that target Saint Vincent Hospital / Tenet specifically (i.e., Counts I - VIII) all essentially arise from these allegations. [Id. at 5-9].

With respect to the Union, Ljungberg claims that it breached its duty of fair representation: (1) by failing to file a timely step placement / backpay-related grievance on her behalf; (2) by passing along a proposed offer from Saint Vincent Hospital / Tenet to pay certain back wages in exchange for a general release of claims -- which Ljungberg ultimately rejected, and (3) by attempting in bad faith to shield itself from a lawsuit like this one.

The Union has moved for summary judgment on the two counts that target it: Ljungberg's breach of the duty of fair representation claim (Count IX) as well Ljungberg's more general declaratory judgment claim (Count X) that seeks a judicial pronouncement as to the amount of backpay that she is owed.

After an in-person hearing [ECF No. 44] and careful consideration of the summary judgment record, the Court hereby GRANTS the Union's summary judgment motion [ECF No. 26] for the reasons stated below. The Court will resolve Saint Vincent Hospital / Tenet's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 19] by way of a separate Memorandum and Order.

II. Background

a. Procedural History

Ljungberg filed her Complaint [ECF No. 17] on January 6, 2024. The Union later moved for summary judgment [ECF No. 26]. Ljungberg filed an opposition [ECF No. 31] to which the Union filed a reply [ECF No. 34]. The Court held a hearing on the Union's motion and Saint Vincent Hospital / Tenet's abovereferenced motion to dismiss [ECF No. 19] on July 8, 2024 [ECF No. 44]. At the hearing, the Court took the motions under advisement.

b. Relevant Facts

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint [ECF No. 17], the Union's statement of undisputed material facts [ECF No. 27 at 1-6], Plaintiff's statement of “Facts Not In Dispute Which Support [] Plaintiff's Cause of Action” [ECF No. 31 at 8-9], and other supporting documents and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Since the Court will be disposing of Saint Vincent Hospital and Tenet's motion to dismiss by way of a separate Memorandum and Order, the facts recited here are only those necessary to address the Union's summary judgment motion.

c. Plaintiff and the Union

Ljungberg lives in Charlton, Massachusetts. [ECF No. 17 at 1]. She began her current term of employment with Saint Vincent Hospital in 2018. [Id. at 2]. She is employed as a Per Diem Mammography Technologist. [Id.] Prior to her current term of employment, she had worked at Saint Vincent Hospital from 20032012 and then again from 2013-2015. [Id.] Her starting base salary in 2018 was $35.56 per hour. [Id.] Ljungberg is a member of the Union. [Id.]

The Union represents full-time and part-time “non-nurse technicians, technologists, therapists,” and other employees at Saint Vincent Hospital. [ECF No. 28 at 1]. As both prior and current versions of the collective bargaining agreements between the Union and Saint Vincent Hospital / Tenet reveal, the Union acts as the “sole and exclusive bargaining representative” for its members relative to nearly every aspect of its members' employment -- including, for example, wages, hours, sick time, and benefits. [ECF 17-1 at 1; ECF 22-1 at 2]. The primary spokesperson for the Union throughout the 2022-2023 negotiations was Mr. Elias Gillen (“Gillen”), one of the Union's business agents. [ECF No. 28 at 1].

d. The Collective Bargaining Agreement: Negotiations and Key Provisions

During 2022 and early 2023, the Union and Tenet engaged in negotiations regarding the construction of a new, three-year collective bargaining agreement that would govern the terms and conditions of employment for members of the Union. [Id.] These negotiations were lengthy and challenging and required the services of a mediator. [Id.] One of the primary contested issues was the nature and content of the applicable pay scale. [Id. at 2].

Ultimately, the parties agreed upon contractual provisions that, in general, indexed an employee-member's starting hourly wage -- and applicable wage increases -- to their years of relevant work experience at Tenet or elsewhere. [ECF No. 17-1 at 10-11]. The parties further agreed that Tenet would create a “first draft” of a wage chart that would set forth memberemployees' starting hourly wages based on the information Tenet had regarding each employee's^[4]years of relevant work experience. [ECF No. 27 at 2]. The bargaining parties took for granted that this first iteration of the wage chart would likely misclassify certain employees because Tenet did not necessarily have fully complete records of each employee's relevant experience. [Id.] In fact, as detailed below, the Union began pursuing higher starting wages on behalf of several allegedly misclassified employees even before the final version of the collective bargaining agreement was signed. [Id.]

On or about March 3, 2023, the bargaining parties executed the final version of their three-year year collective bargaining agreement (the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). [ECF No. 171]. By its terms, the Collective Bargaining Agreement came into effect on March 3, 2023. [Id. at 1]. A brief discussion of several key provisions is warranted here.

Article 11 contains the applicable “Grievance and Arbitration” regime. [Id. at 7-9]. This section starts by explaining that certain “day-to-day problems” could usually be worked out between employees and their immediate supervisor and, as such, are not considered grievances for purposes of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. [Id. at 7]. Article 11 continues by defining a grievance as a “complaint by an employee (i) that as to her/him [Saint Vincent Hospital] has applied a provision of this Agreement in violation of its terms, and (ii) that such application has adversely affected her/him as an employee.” [Id.]

Article 11 then proceeds to lay out a detailed, multi-step grievance pathway. [Id. at 7-8]. Among other things, this section provides that grievances may be initiated by either the affected employee or by a Union representative on the affected employee's behalf. [Id. at 7 (“[t]he grievance, signed by the aggrieved employee or authorized Union representative, shall be submitted in writing to her/his Department Director within fourteen (14) days of the event(s) giving rise to the grievance.”) (emphasis added)]. If the affected employee is not satisfied with the result in “Step 1”, “Step 2” provides for written appeals to be timely submitted to the appropriate department's senior director or vice president. [Id. at 8]. “Step 3” provides for decisions made in “Step 2” to be appealed to Saint Vincent Hospital's Vice President of Human Resources.

[Id.] “Step 4” provides in part that, "[i]f the Union is not satisfied with the answer to the grievance given by the Hospital's Vice President of Human Resources or her/his designee in Step 3, the Union may refer the grievance to arbitration by filing its written demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (pursuant to its Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules).” [Id. (emphasis added)]. Thus, it's clear that whether or not the Union wishes to pursue arbitration relating to an individual employee's grievance not only depends on whether it is ripe for arbitration but is also squarely within the Union's discretion.

Article 11 also provides for the way in which the Union may file "Group Grievances”. [Id.] On that score, Article 11 provides in part that, “[w]here two or more employees have identical grievances or substantially similar grievances under this Article 11, the Union may file a single ‘group grievance' on their behalf that shall be subject to resolution in the manner set forth [elsewhere in Article 11] . . .” [Id. (emphasis added)]. Here too, then, Article 11 grants the Union the discretion regarding the pursuit of grievances.

Article 13 provides starting wage and wage increase regime. [Id. at 10-11]. It provides that, subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement's minimum pay rate provisions, wages and increases shall be determined by reference to the Appendix A to the Collective Bargaining Agreement's wage chart "Step Grid.” [Id. at 10-11; ECF No. 17-1 at 34-36]. Under this scheme, employees would have their "Year 1” wages determined by their “step” placement on the “Step Grid", which was based on “completed years of experience . . .” [ECF No. 17-1 at 11]. Moreover, “[a]ny employee who may not advance because they are at or over the top step shall receive an increase of 3% in their hourly rate.” [Id.] ...