In this case, the Hospital sought to reassign employees displaced by a bumping, contrary to the requirements of Article 9.09(d) which provides that displaced employees “shall be deemed to have been laid off and entitled to notice in accordance with Article 9.08(A)(a).” The case law is clear that the Hospital is required to offer displaced ‚Äčemployees notice of layoff in these circumstances, and also make offers of early retirement and voluntary exit to employees in the affected classification. Indeed, one of those cases arose out of the very Hospital that was a responding party in these proceedings.

The Board of Arbitration, Chaired by Christine Schmidt, upheld the grievance, thereby confirming, once again, that displaced employees cannot be reassigned but must be provided with notice of layoff, and that early retirement and voluntary exit packages must be offered prior to issuing the notice of layoff.

OCHU’s involvement in this case (and in the Ross Memorial Hospital case described below and included at Tab 1 0A) was critical to protect the rights of displaced employees and its prior jurisprudential gains against a strategic result orchestrated by the OHA.