SOMEONE BLINKED
Uploaded in the Dec. 13, 2025 issue.
The mediators have done quite a job.
After a lengthy third-party mediation session on Tuesday, Dec. 9, a tentative agreement has been reached that, if approved by a vote of union members, would avert a strike by several hundred nurses and technical workers at Northen Inyo Hospital District (NIHD) that had been slated to begin on Monday, Dec. 15.
The agreement “resolves our disputes,” the union said in a Dec. 10 press release. However, “in order to protect this process,” details of the deal will not be released until after Thursday’s union vote, the press release stated. The voting will run all day and wrap up at 8 p.m.
“If the agreement is ratified, the Union will withdraw notice of the … Strike and release further details on Friday,” the union said.
“This tentative agreement represents a positive step for our employees, our organization, and the community we serve,” said NIHD CEO Christian Wallis. “If it is ratified, we look forward to moving ahead together with a shared focus on safe, consistent patient care.”
As in most labor deals, the devil (and the money) is in the details.
The union, Local 315 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), offered a serious set of reasons for authorizing the strike. It challenged NIHD’s handling of negotiations, staffing issues, executive pay, paid vacation and time off rules, annual raises, and the district’s delay of a planned cost of living pay hike.
A sharp response to those union positions was released by NIHD on Friday, Dec. 5. It said the district’s first move would be spending between $650,00 to $900,00 to “arrange temporary staffing to keep essential services open” during any strike. The nurses authorized a four-day strike, Monday through Thursday, with the technical workers striking only on Monday.
Bringing on temporary workers would “help hospital, clinic, and emergency services remain available for the community,” NIHD stated.
AFSCME represents separate bargaining units for roughly 100 nurses and about 230 tech workers, a group that includes medical assistants, admissions clerks, kitchen staff, lab and radiology techs, licensed vocational nurses, certified nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and specialty clinic technical staff.
The district, not the union, requested the state mediation that took place on Tuesday, “after several weeks without a response from the union,” NIHD said. The last face-to-face meeting occurred on Oct. 8 (The Sheet incorrectly reported in the Dec. 6 edition that the last meeting was in July).
The NIHD press release defended the district’s approach to negotiations, presented reasons to delay a planned 3.5% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), and justified the salaries for NIHD executives. The district also released a 25-page response it submitted to the California Public Employment Relations Board countering union charges that the district had violated the union contract, and thus the proposed strike was undertaken as an Unfair Labor Practices action.
Counter to union claims, CEO Wallis said the district had been “bargaining in good faith” for six months.
The district proposed “pausing” the slated 3.5% COLA due to its current $6 million fiscal year loss and the unknown impacts of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
That legislation has already been blamed for the closure of numerous small, rural hospitals and long-term fiscal impacts are still mostly unknown. Rising operating and supply costs and changes in insurance and government healthcare reimbursements (Medicare and Medicaid) add to the district’s “financial pressures,” it said.
The district wanted to resume wage and benefit negotiations in April 2016, when there is a “better understanding of the hospitals financial position.” The union rejected that proposal and asked for the COLA as scheduled, NIHD said.
The district provides eligible employees a 2.5% annual raise, NIHD said. Employees who have hit the maximum salary or pay level for their job classification do not get the annual raise. Overall wages, including for nurses and tech workers, “have increased to approximately 25 percent more than the Consumer Price Index during the last 10 and five years,” the press releases stated. That has helped recruit and retain staff, it added.
The salary of CEO Wallis and other NIHD executives was also highlighted by the union which was “alarmed” by those costs. The $460,00 a year for Wallis is less then what he made as interim CEO, the press release stated, and is “within fair market value for the area.” It added he has 30 years of experience, 16 of which were at top tier executive levels, and his pay is lower than CEO pay at “neighboring healthcare systems.”
Numerous executives at NIH “hold combined or expanded roles to reduce costs and maintain essential services in a small rural hospital.”
The filing contesting the fair labor complaint categorically rejects the union charge that the district “unilaterally” changed staffing ratios without negotiating with the nurses’ union.
The filing cites sections of the current nurse’s union contract that allow hospital managers to adjust staffing based on fluctuating numbers of patients and other factors. At no time did the district change its staffing policies or procedures, the filing states.
The compliant was based on “preemptive concerns” that management would not “exercise good judgement” regarding numerous staffing situations.
There has been no indication when the California Public Employment Relations Board would make a ruling on the dispute.
If the tentative agreement is rejected by the union membership and a strike starts next week, NIHD reiterated that it will bring in temporary employees to maintain operations: “Northern Inyo Hospital, the Rural Health Clinic, and all other NIHD services remain open and operating normally. Any temporary schedule changes during the strike will be announced through NIHD’s website, social media channels, and local media partners,” the press release concluded.
