The UFT began the first fact-finding hearing for a new contract on May 6 by making the case that New York City teachers are underpaid compared to their counterparts in other nearby school districts.
In its presentation, the UFT noted that teachers don’t enter the profession to get rich, but do expect a solid, middle-class lifestyle.
The union’s representatives spoke before a table of three labor relations experts appointed by the state Public Employment Relations Board to hear the union and the Department of Education present their cases for the terms of the next contract.
Listening just as intently to the UFT’s opening presentation were the DOE’s representatives at a table facing the UFT representatives, who included President Michael Mulgrew and Secretary Michael Mendel.
The dispute pivots largely on the question of pattern bargaining. The UFT’s position is that its members are entitled to the same raises as other city workers have received. The mayor contends that the city cannot afford to follow the pattern.
There are six hearings scheduled between now and late July, although more hearings could be added. Mayor Bloomberg is expected to address the fact-finding panel on June 12, the same day as the Fair Contracts for All rally called by the Municipal Labor Committee, the umbrella group representing the city’s public sector unions.
The fact-finding panel will produce nonbinding recommendations designed to help the two sides craft a final settlement. In 2005, 2002 and 1993, the recommendations of fact-finding panels helped the UFT and the Department of Education to reach agreements to replace expired contracts.
In that final settlement, the union will have the ability to modify the teacher evaluation plan decided by State Education Commissioner John King because his plan will become part of the contract. Any changes would take effect in the 2014–15 school year.
The UFT’s most recent contract expired on Oct. 31, 2009. Under the state Taylor Law that governs relations between management and public employee labor unions, all the terms of the expired contract remain in effect until a new agreement is reached.
Q & A on the process
What is fact-finding?
When two parties cannot agree to the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement during negotiations, fact-finding is a process under the state’s Taylor Law by which a third party — in this case a panel of appointed labor relations experts — creates a set of recommendations designed to resolve the dispute.
What is the difference between fact-finding and binding arbitration?
In binding arbitration, both parties are locked into the terms set by the arbitrator. The fact-finding process, on the other hand, results in a series of suggestions that outline a fair contract resolution.
How is it determined that fact-finding is necessary?
One party, or both, can declare an impasse during contract negotiations. If the state Public Employment Relations Board agrees, the dispute proceeds to mediation. Mediation brings both parties to the table with a professional mediator; if that fails to produce an agreement, the parties, with the approval of PERB, proceed to fact-finding.
In the case of the UFT, PERB appointed a mediator in February 2010 given the lack of progress in negotiations. That September the union charged that mediation had failed and sought the appointment of a fact-finding panel. The panel was appointed by PERB last fall.
How does fact-finding work?
The parties submit briefs and have an opportunity to deliver opening statements presenting their cases to the fact-finders. They also present witnesses. After the hearings, the fact-finders produce a decision that lays out recommended parameters for contract resolution.
Briefs in the UFT case were forwarded to the fact-finders on April 26. Hearings began May 6 and are set for dates in June and July. The hearings are not open to outsiders, but the fact-finders’ eventual report will be a public document.
Who are the fact-finders?
Fact-finders are typically experts in the field of public-sector labor relations. In this case, the fact-finders are Martin Sheinman, Howard Edelman and Marc Grossman.
Are the fact-finders’ recommendations always followed?
The fact-finders’ recommendations typically form the basis for contract resolution, though not necessarily all contract provisions.
What is pattern bargaining?
Pattern bargaining is the city’s process of using one contract settlement as the model for the rest of the city’s labor contracts. It has been the city’s — and more recently the Bloomberg administration’s — method of managing and stabilizing city labor contracts since the fiscal crisis of the 1970s. In fact, as Jim Hanley, the head of the city’s Labor Relations office, recently testified, even as the city was laying off cops and other employees during the 2008 fiscal crisis, it continued to ensure that all unions were paid according to the pattern. Hanley testified that pattern bargaining is the city’s “policy and practice.”
Does pattern bargaining include retroactive pay for unions whose contracts have expired?
Retroactive pay has been a traditional feature of city contracts with its employees. Arbitrators generally rule on retroactive raises as part of their findings.
What is the status of contract negotiations for other municipal unions?
In an unprecedented move, the Bloomberg administration has allowed virtually all union contracts to expire without negotiating new agreements. At the same time, the administration has failed to factor in the cost of settlements to any future budget, leaving the next mayor with a major budget problem.
