A federal judge has determined the competing claims that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado and its union have lodged against each other will proceed to trial, with the parties both alleging a breach of staffing responsibilities in their collective bargaining agreement.

In a pair of orders, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez determined there was a factual dispute over whether the union failed to hold up its obligation to assist Kaiser in ensuring adequate staffing levels. He similarly believed the question of Kaiser’s own deviation from the agreement needed to be fleshed out at trial, although Martínez made clear the union had the tougher job of proving Kaiser breached its contract within the period covered by the statute of limitations.

“To that point, the Court anticipates that the Union has a steep hill to climb at trial,” he cautioned.

The lawsuit centers on a section of the parties’ collective bargaining agreements for mental health and “multi-professional” health care workers. The union and Kaiser committed to “recognize their mutual and ethical responsibility to provide sufficient staffing to meet quality standards of patient care.” At the same time, “Kaiser shall provide sufficient staffing” for safe coverage.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 7 filed suit against Kaiser in 2021, alleging it breached the agreement by making decisions that failed to address persistent staffing shortages or worsened the situation. The union claimed the problems were affecting patient care.

Kaiser turned around and filed its own breach of contract claim against the union, arguing the collective bargaining agreement obligated the union to take responsibility for staffing, as well. In Kaiser’s telling, the union fought staffing reforms or encouraged employees to “call out well.”

Both sides moved for summary judgment, asking Martínez to end the case in their favor without a trial. First, Martínez turned to Kaiser’s claim against Local 7 and the union’s rejoinder that there was “no way” to read the collective bargaining agreement as placing an obligation on the union for adequate staffing.

“Quite the contrary, Kaiser largely makes staffing decisions without, and in spite of, input from Local 7,” wrote the union’s attorneys.

Martínez deemed the question a “very close call,” but concluded the collective bargaining agreement clearly referred to the parties’ “mutual and ethical responsibility to provide sufficient staffing.” 

“In other words, Kaiser alone can hire, fire, or lay off staff,” he wrote in a June 17 order. But the agreement “obligates the Union to work in tandem with Kaiser to provide adequate staffing to meet the demands of providing appropriate patient care.”

It was not clear whether the union’s opposition to Kaiser’s staffing decisions constituted a breach of the agreement, so Martínez green-lit the claim for trial.

Second, Martínez evaluated whether Local 7’s claim could proceed against Kaiser, and specifically whether a breach occurred after October 2018 — the three-year statute of limitations prior to the lawsuit’s filing. Kaiser argued the union’s own allegations and the evidence suggested staffing concerns were an issue well before 2018.

“The Union does not dispute that certain staffing issues were first identified and/or first raised long ago,” Local 7’s lawyers acknowledged, while maintaining that some specific problems arose repeatedly or for the first time within the statute of limitations.

In a July 9 order, Martínez once again agreed a trial was necessary to sort out “when certain staffing inadequacies arose, evolved, and/or ended, and when Local 7 learned of certain staffing issues.”

A nine-day bench trial is scheduled to begin in January. The union is asking Martínez to order Kaiser to increase staffing to comply with the contract, while Kaiser is asking the union to provide sufficient staffing.

The case is United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local No. 7 v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado et al.