In a resounding display of solidarity that defied a concerted management campaign, support staff at Copley Hospital in Morrisville have decisively voted to retain their union representation, signaling a critical turning point in a year-long struggle for a collective bargaining agreement. The secret ballot election held on Wednesday, January 15, 2026, and overseen by the National Labor Review Board, concluded with a powerful 73-38 vote in favor of maintaining the union. This result is not merely a reaffirmation but a significant strengthening of the workers’ initial resolve; the margin of victory is substantially wider than the 68-44 vote that first established the union in November 2024. The outcome serves as a clear mandate from the employees, forged through months of stalled negotiations and contentious administrative tactics, setting a new, more determined tone for the future of labor relations at the medical facility.
Catalysts for a Contentious Election
The path to this rare decertification election began when a petition, signed by the requisite 30% of union members, legally triggered a new vote on their representation. This internal push was not born from a rejection of union principles but rather from profound frustration with the hospital’s administration. According to union member Sarah Bray, a support staffer at Mansfield Orthopedics, the primary catalysts were the eight months of protracted and slow-moving contract negotiations that had yielded little progress. A core sticking point throughout these discussions was the establishment of a fair and structured wage scale, a foundational element of collective bargaining that Bray noted the hospital had never previously implemented for its support staff. This prolonged stalemate created an environment of uncertainty and financial strain, which became the fertile ground from which the decertification effort grew, driven by a desire to break the impasse one way or another.
The already tense atmosphere was inflamed by a divisive administrative decision in August. In an internal memorandum dated August 11, Copley CEO Joe Woodin announced a 5% raise for all hospital employees, with one glaring exception: the unionized support staff. Woodin justified the exclusion by stating that the compensation for union members is governed by collective bargaining agreements and could not be altered unilaterally. However, employees perceived this move as a strategic and punitive tactic designed to sow discord and undermine their collective efforts. Sarah Bray suggested that this action significantly exacerbated the financial pressures on workers already grappling with a rising cost of living. By creating a two-tiered system of compensation, the hospital’s strategy appeared to have backfired, inadvertently highlighting the very reasons many felt a strong union contract was necessary and ultimately contributing to the internal push for a vote that would decisively settle the question of their collective future.
Managements Campaign and Stance
Throughout the period leading up to the vote, Copley Hospital’s administration projected a public image of neutrality and respect for the democratic process, while internal communications revealed a clear and consistent preference for a non-unionized workforce. In a December 30 memo to employees, Wayne Stockbridge, the Chief of Administration and Human Resources, defended the exclusion of union staff from the 5% raise as a “legal requirement” rather than a punitive measure. However, the memo quickly pivoted to an active campaign to discourage union membership. Stockbridge warned that contract negotiations would likely “drag on” if the union were not decertified, a statement many interpreted as a threat of continued obstruction. He further highlighted the financial burden of union dues and criticized the union’s emphasis on seniority for promotions, contrasting it with the hospital’s stated focus on “individual performance and the ability to work flexibly,” an argument aimed at appealing to employees who might feel constrained by collective rules.
The administration’s anti-union stance was not limited to a single memo but was part of a broader, sustained messaging campaign. Stockbridge’s communication concluded with the unambiguous statement: “We believe the relationship Copley has with our employees is stronger, more productive, and more responsive without a union,” leaving no doubt as to the hospital’s desired outcome. This sentiment was echoed on the eve of the election in a public letter from interim Chief Operating Officer Carol Ferrante. She encouraged staff to vote based on their “personal interest” while framing union rules regarding seniority as “rigid,” claiming they inhibit the hospital’s “flexibility to reward the individuals who are working the hardest.” These direct appeals, viewed alongside previous complaints filed with the National Labor Review Board by the Northeast Nurses Association alleging unlawful firings related to union activities, painted a comprehensive picture of an administration actively working to persuade its employees to dissolve their union.
An Unmistakable Verdict and the Path Forward
Despite the administration’s persuasive efforts, the support staff delivered an overwhelming rejection of the non-union model. The decisive vote was immediately framed by union representatives as a powerful and unambiguous mandate for change. Sarah Bray described the victory not just as a choice to keep the union but as a clear directive from her coworkers “to stay organized, to fight for a livable wage and fight for a fair contract.” Her statement underscored that the election was a referendum on the need for collective action to achieve economic security. This sentiment was reinforced by Katie Doodie, a regional organizer for the Northeast Nurses Association, who asserted that the outcome reiterates the staff’s consistent and unwavering demand for a contract that provides “fair wages, transparency, and the resources necessary to provide quality patient care.” Doodie interpreted the result as an unmistakable signal to management to cease delays and resume negotiations promptly and in good faith.
In response to the election results, the Copley Hospital administration adopted a conciliatory public posture. Wayne Stockbridge issued a formal statement acknowledging the staff’s decision, noting, “We respect the democratic process that played out and the decision employees made against decertification of their union.” While he reiterated the hospital’s long-held preference for a “direct working relationship,” he affirmed that the administration’s priority had now shifted to “move forward constructively and collaboratively.” The vote’s outcome had firmly placed the onus back on the hospital to engage with the newly emboldened workforce. The fundamental philosophical conflict between the hospital’s model of discretionary, individual rewards and the employees’ demand for the collective security of a union contract had been decisively settled by the workers themselves, setting a new foundation for the critical negotiations that lay ahead.
