Partnership Puzzle

CASE STUDY

Partnership Puzzle

How can a tough-minded agency management team and a combative labor leader find common ground at a shaky bargaining table?

o we're back to hardball," sighed human resources director Dale Halloran. "We're on the verge of a fair, reasonable labor agreement with Vince Sheridan, and Rick Story takes over the union presidency by calling the pact a sellout to management. Now I've got to listen to his stuff again about how we need the union's permission to do anything with their bargaining unit except pay them."

"I have to admit I'm pretty surprised that Vince was ousted after just one year," responded Wilbur Bryant, Halloran's hard-nosed labor relations officer. "After all, I told you I thought you were giving away more to him than you needed to in negotiations. I was sure that would make Vince a hero to his constituents. But remember, they have only a handful of active members, and it doesn't take much to win a vote. I think you can expect an early call from Rick Story."

"To dictate the terms of surrender?" Halloran grumbled. "Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that. Let's get together this afternoon and you can bring me up to date on the unresolved issues between us and the union."

The human resources chief forced himself to focus on a war front that had seemed quiet for almost a year. The local union of technical employees at the Science and Engineering Center had been in existence for more than 15 years but had hardly made a ripple except for protests over individual discipline and assignment cases. The first time the local had proposed contract negotiations was less than two years before, after drawing blood from management with sustained denunciations of a broad review of pay grades. Their alarmist leaflets, much exaggerated to Halloran's mind, had succeeded in causing considerable anxiety among employees. The fliers had even moved the center director to ask Halloran to refresh her memory on the objectives and procedures of a review she had endorsed only months before. Halloran's briefing satisfied her and the review proceeded.

The union's first contract negotiating team had been led by long-time president Luke Williams, whose skepticism and sharp questioning were balanced by his amiability. While labor and management had agreed to a number of clauses and deadlocked on others, Rick Story had clearly emerged as the toughest and most unyielding member of Williams' team. He regularly articulated a theory of federal labor relations, novel to Halloran, under which nearly any personnel management initiative was subject to the review and veto of the union. Methodically and tirelessly, he would challenge the assertion of management prerogatives and offer examples of how those powers had been abused. Halloran, exasperated at Story's frequent and lengthy lectures, had tried to engage him "off line" to explain the distribution of rights under the labor statute and case law, but failed to make an impression.

Then, some months into the negotiations, Williams retired and was succeeded by Vince Sheridan, who had not hitherto played a prominent role in union affairs. Sheridan used the usual opening rhetoric about high-handed management practices, but proved to be a reasonable and constructive negotiator. Developing an unexpected rapport with Halloran, Sheridan suggested that they discuss the particularly controversial job analysis procedures clause one-on-one. Without Story's verbal bombast slowing them, they crafted a clause in less than a month. It was subsequently endorsed by both negotiating teams.

But the union endorsement had been less than unanimous. During negotiations on the remaining clauses, Story began campaigning for the union presidency on the theme that Sheridan was ratifying management malpractices in the negotiations. Enough anxious employees who had not previously taken part in union business had trooped to the election meeting to choose Story as the new local president.

Halloran and Bryant met later that day and reviewed the status of the remaining contract issues. None seemed beyond resolution. "Bottom line, do you think Story wants a contract or not?" Halloran asked. "I think he's more interested in the process, in putting us on the defensive about our current policies and procedures, than in getting to a final agreement," Bryant said. "He's been fighting a holy war since an office mate of his had a heart attack after being given a reassignment to another location some years back. Signing a contract is his last concern."

"Chickens coming home to roost," Halloran groaned. "Those reassignments were misguided management attempts to purge marginal performers by offering them jobs they wouldn't want so they'd quit. Management did got with a lot in those days. So it'll be total war?"

"You bet, boss," said Bryant. "And you'll be longing for the days when you had those tedious philosophical one-on-one sessions with Story. Now he'll be dragging in all the third parties he can find. You can expect him to file unfair labor practice complaints with the Federal Labor Relations Authority on the grade review and demand that we refer one or more of the uncompleted contract clauses to the Federal Service Impasses Panel. You might even expect media attention, if not congressional inquiries. That is, unless we can think of an entirely new approach. Maybe it's time for a serious look at partnership," he said with a pained smile.

RICHARD L. DUNN:

PREPARE FOR THE WORST

Richard L. Dunn is general counsel at the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency. His 25-year federal law career has included advising on labor relations.

espite Halloran's history with Story, he should recognize the changed relationship and meet with Story in his new capacity as president of the local union. Although he may have done it before, Halloran should clearly articulate his understanding of the relative rights and responsibilities of management and union under law. He should listen to Story and try to extract Story's "philosophy" of labor-management relations. If it's a rehash of old positions, well at least Halloran has tried. But if common ground can be found, it could be the first step in building a constructive relationship.

A partnership is almost impossible to build if the parties have conflicting views of their legitimate and constructive roles. Glossing over fundamental differences while talking "partnership" may be self-delusion. On the other hand, if areas of common ground can be found, initial steps toward a less adversarial relationship can be tested with the hope of expanding the areas of mutual agreement in the future.

Halloran should convey to Story and the other union negotiators that new union leadership does not change his fundamental views on labor-management relations. He should make it clear that where a constructive relationship is possible, it will be sought. But management cannot responsibly surrender its prerogatives because the union might want to co-manage the Science and Engineering Center. Management must be prepared to deal with the union in a confrontational mode if forced into that position.

There is no reason for Halloran to seek third-party intervention at this point. Resort to third-party forums tends to indicate a breakdown in a constructive relationship. The prospect of third-party intervention, however, looms larger than before Story became president. If strict record-keeping and documentation has not been emphasized in the past, it must be now.

Story's attitude suggests he may be more interested in scoring points in a third-party forum than in addressing issues capable of reasonable resolution. Halloran and Bryant have their work cut out for them. In addition to documenting their own meetings, they must ensure that line managers who supervise bargaining unit members are schooled in the basics of labor-management relations and know that they should consult the human resources specialists when issues with potential for disputes arise.

Halloran needs to be sure top managers understand that the center may be embarking on a more adversarial relationship, and that referral of cases to third-party forums is not necessarily a sign of failure on the part of labor-management staff. The public affairs office also needs to be apprised of the changing labor climate and the possibility of adverse publicity. Halloran should consult with the center's legal staff to assure that appropriate expertise is available there.

In summary, Halloran should look for opportunities, hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

ROBERT M. TOBIAS:

DON'T EXPECT QUICK FIXES

Robert M. Tobias has been President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the largest independent federal union, since 1983. He is a member of the National Partnership Council.

aybe it's time for a serious look at partnership and then again, maybe it's not. It appears that Mr. Halloran views partnership as a tool or technique to procure an atmosphere of "civility and amiability" and blunt Mr. Story's aggressive assertion of union rights. If the partnership effort is seen solely as a quick fix or as an end rather than a means to fundamental change in the labor-management relationship, it will quickly fail.

To be successful, partnership must be viewed as involving employees and their union pre-decisionally in all matters, with the goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations. This creates an atmosphere of knowledge, understanding and trust. And it gives employees and their union a stake in the outcome, pride in the undertaking, hope for something different and satisfaction with the effort. The overlapping management and union interests must be identified and acted upon in order to sustain a successful partnership effort.

Based on the Science and Engineering Center director's remote involvement in the labor management area, inviting the union to be part of the daily business decisions of the agency would be a radical change. Therefore, Halloran must first accept a changed role for himself and management.

In a successful partnership, human resources and labor relations are not marginalized, but central to the strategic decision-making in the agency. Employees become a resource to be effectively used, and through their involvement, motivated to achieve agency goals and objectives rather than "managed" into "amiability."

If he is willing to accept this new role, Halloran must convince the director that partnership efforts have the potential to result in cost savings, increased productivity and a less expensive adversarial process (due to fewer grievances, unfair labor practice charges and bargaining impasses). And she must be willing to involve employees through their union in pre-decisional matters that have an impact on employees.

Mr. Halloran might point out that the union is warming to its bargaining rights, has developed effective communication links with employees (even though he disagrees with the messages conveyed) and is willing to be extremely adversarial. Such an approach by the union would make managing more difficult because of the expanded right to bargain contained in Executive Order 12871 on labor-management relations, the increased need to "do more with less" because of reduced agency budgets, and the legal requirement to produce auditable financial statements and five-year strategic plans and deliver on one-year operating plans. An adversarial atmosphere would make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve agency goals.

Assuming Halloran convinces the director that partnership is worthwhile, he will then also have to convince Story that he and the agency are serious about changing. And Story will have to convince himself and his members that it is in their best interest to engage in a partnership effort.

There is a great deal of education and training available to parties who are interested in building trust and creating the infrastructure for a partnership effort. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Federal Labor Relations Authority and numerous private facilitators can help parties define their interests, mutually define changed roles and expectations, test changed behavior and build trust. No successful partnership can avoid this hard work.

Whether to proceed also is complicated by the deteriorating state of bargaining, which is moving the parties farther apart rather than closer together. It may be that the parties are too far down this path and need the catharsis of a battle before they can begin to even think about taking the risk to identify mutual interests and consensus decision-making. On the other hand, the parties may wish to explore the state of their relationship, the progress of their bargaining, the potential consequences, and the possibility of change.

Halloran, after obtaining the full concurrence of the director, should approach Story and arrange a meeting among the three parties to discuss creating a partnership. This would signal that management is serious about exploring change. This meeting, if successful, should be followed by a larger meeting to include key management and union officials. A changed or changing relationship must be supported by a broad base of union leaders and management officials, and that will occur only with early involvement and acceptance.

Creating a successful partnership requires all of the energy and effort needed to create any successful interpersonal relationship. And all parties must be prepared to accept the risks and disappointments because they believe it is in their best individual and mutual interest.

JOSEPH SWERDZEWSKI AND WILLIAM E. FLEISCHMAN:

AVOID A COLLISION

Joseph Swerdzewski is general counsel at the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the office which investigates, settles and prosecutes unfair labor practice charges. William E. Fleischman is special assistant to the deputy general counsel of FLRA for intervention services.

he situation described commonly results in the filing of a series of new unfair labor practice charges, leading to costly and time-consuming litigation and an endless cycle of conflicts.

Story is carrying a lot of pent-up anger arising most likely in part from what he perceived to be a significant management error, an error which Halloran and Bryant acknowledge to themselves and are embarrassed about. Story distrusts management and believes the union should have an increased role in decision-making at the center. We know little of Story's interest, knowledge or skills in collective bargaining or the realism of his expectations under the federal statutory framework.

Halloran and Bryant have had difficulty accepting Story's anger and in listening to him. They fear the conflict that may arise from his orientation and its possible result in increased filings.

The two sides are headed for a collision arising from their mutual distrust, communication difficulties, attitudinal and skill differences as to statutory requirements and differing perceptions of union and management roles. These difficulties cause parties to continue with conflicted working relationships that focus on power, statutory rights, the use of third parties to resolve disputes and "winning and losing."

They need to discuss their distrust, communication difficulties, perceptions of union and management roles, and mutual and separate interests in a safe, conversational environment. They probably need a facilitator. Facilitators support participants' efforts to express their goals, fears and concerns, and maintain their emotional balance. They assist with the focus of the discussion. They encourage active listening. They are especially valuable for maintaining the safety of the conversational environment.

Halloran, Bryant, Story and their union and management colleagues probably would also benefit from a joint review of Executive Order 12871 and their rights and obligations under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. This review may help them "work from the same page" in collective bargaining and clear up perceived barriers to changes in their relationship. They would benefit from a facilitated interest-based problem-solving approach both for developing a common set of goals and objectives for their relationship and for resolving their current disputes.

They may have difficulty recognizing or agreeing on their need for this kind of assistance. If resources for such assistance are not available within their center or agency, they are available from a variety of sources, including, in some circumstances, the FLRA.

If the likely collision occurs and results in a host of new unfair labor practice charges, the FLRA's regional office would be likely to note that the charges result from relationship difficulties. Continuing past practices and following a recently issued policy, (Federal Labor Relations Authority, Office of the General Counsel, "Intervention Policy" memorandum, Oct. 20, 1995) the office would initiate joint discussions with the parties on the nature of their difficulties and their interest in and need for assistance. Depending on their situation, the availability of FLRA staff, and the parties' joint willingness and ability to participate, a variety of services may be offered. If assistance is provided, the processing of some or all of the unfair labor practice charges may be held in abeyance. In addition, the parties are often (but not always) able to resolve their underlying disputes, without the need for protracted litigation.