Steps in the Collective Bargaining Process

---

1. Preparation

Understand that labor negotiations is a continuous process and entails much more than sitting at the table negotiating the contract. The actual bargaining process is but a small piece of labor relations.

Prior to any table negotiations, each side needs to be prepared. This includes taking a serious look at the organizational culture, the climate within the organization, and the history of labor management relations within the organization. This can help to provide insight as to what might require negotiation, what might sail in negotiations, and what should be left alone.

Then, the parties need to look at the present agreement to determine the problem areas. Where have the major differences in interpretation been? What issues have produced grievances? Certainly, these areas should logically be addressed whether it calls for changing the contract or merely more clearly stating provisions. What items might have been included in the contract that were not? Would having them there benefit both labor and management? You also might want to compare the current contract with others from comparable bargaining units in other organizations.

Then there is the research and fact-finding. The fact-finding is necessary in several arenas. First of all, what are your side's concerns and what are the concerns of the other side? Where are the dissatisfactions? What are the irritations? The reality is that if both sides adequately prepare regarding this arena, nothing is likely to emerge as a surprise in the negotiations process. Employee surveys, and discussion with union stewards and perhaps first line supervisors can facilitate understanding where the "customers" are coming from. I would strongly recommend (and this is your course developer talking) that such surveys be administered jointly by labor and management and that minimally, the results of any such surveys should be shared with the other side.

As we move from other concerns to wages and benefits, both sides should be looking at compensation and benefit surveys of comparable agencies not only across the board but also, and perhaps more importantly, those within the general locale. While knowing what the "ultimate" salary package might look like might be of interest, both sides need to realize that they are bargaining within the local community and with the local economy. Therefore the most helpful will be learning what others in comparable positions and agencies are earning and what their benefit packages look like.

Both sides should also be looking at compensation costs and personnel data relevant to the jurisdiction and/ or the organization and the jurisdiction's (or organization's) projected budget. What proportion is earmarked for compensation? What other services will be bucking for salary increases and/or upgrades in benefits?

Prior to the onset of negotiations, each side should be assessing how they are going to approach each issue likely to be discussed. I shy away from saying they should establish their "position" on each issue because sometimes the mind set accompanying the work "position" suggests minimal if any movement from that stance. Borrowing from conflict management writers, I recommend each side identify its interests regarding a topic vs. taking a "position."

It is the above phenomenon, taking "position, " that sometimes accounts for one or both sides initially advocating the extreme points of a continuum and creating unnecessary frustration on the part of both sides.

As part of identifying their interests, each side should also think about options regarding each item before ever going to the bargaining table. While a given decision might be perceived as the most beneficial, what would be acceptable or at least "tolerable"? Having thought these issues through will allow negotiations to proceed more smoothly.

Additionally, each side should consider the likely proposals of the other side. If both sides routinely did this, nothing should come as a real surprise for either side. Giving thought to this, each side can think about and prepare any objections or modifications and/or alternative resolution of the issue.

Last in my list at the moment is familiarizing yourself with the players: the negotiating team members representing the other side. Consider their personalities, communication styles, and priorities. By getting a feel for the members of the other bargaining team, the team can adjust its approach, communication style, etc., accordingly.

2. Selection of the Negotiating Teams

Whether it be first or last step in each side’s preparation, one thing required as part of the preparation is the identification of the bargaining team.

For labor, the negotiating team will often include union officers and perhaps one or two members from the “rank and file.” On occasion, a representative from the national union might be involved, most often in an advisory capacity. For management, the negotiating team will often include the jurisdiction’s (or organization’s ) finance officer, the human resource services officer, and one or two senior level managers or council members (assuming a city jurisdiction).

There is some question as to the advisability of the chief or chief executive officer of an organization should be on the management’s negotiating team. If the relationship should become highly adversarial, the chief officer can readily become a target of unnecessary criticism, slander, and hostility. You know, after the negotiations are over, the chief officer needs to be able to work effectively with his or her people. And the chief officer needs the respect and trust of his / her people. Employing the chief officer as an active negotiating team member can have devastating effects on the organizational climate and productivity and the chief. On occasion, one or both sides may elect to use professional labor relations specialists or negotiators.

3. Level of Authority

One other thing needs to be mentioned. What level of authority do the members of the negotiating teams actually have? While we know that the agreement must be ratified by the union membership, and in the emergency services, typically by a city council or board of commissioners or some other governing entity, it is important for bargaining team members to have a clear understanding of the level of their actual authority.

While not likely to have carte blanche authority to actually make decisions, negotiating teams must be given a degree of authority. Otherwise, the need to consult or get approval on every single item can create undue delays, be seen by the opposing team as a delaying tactic, and generate suspicious and negative feelings.

4. Scheduling of Bargaining Sessions


Bargaining sessions are usually scheduled after the union issues a call. The sessions typically begin about 60 days from the time of their call.

Be sure in developing the schedule for the negotiating meetings that it is realistic. This is particularly critical for any officials who may be involved.

When the schedule is finalized and both sides agree, both should stick to it rigorously.

The repetitive canceling by one side or another may be seen rightly or wrongly as a lack of good faith bargaining.

5. Negotiating at the Table

While it is rather typical that the union initiates the negotiations by submitting its proposal, the management team may want to submit its own. This is a pro-active approach and suggests a position of strength. You'll want to include a listing of the items management wishes to discuss and it might possibly address potential trade-offs.

When both sides present the initial proposal, it is interesting to see areas of overlap, commonality of thought, and possible alternatives.

---