Facilitated Intensive Negotiations Kevin Flanigan, Director of Conciliation NYS PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Facilitated Intensive Negotiations (“FIN”) Defined: An alternative model of collective bargaining “Hybrid” process combining: Preventative Mediation Around-the-Clock (marathon) Bargaining Parties commit to a limited but continuous meeting schedule to expedite the negotiations process Traditional Bargaining on Steroids!

Facilitated Intensive Negotiations - Context New York’s Taylor Law PERB Impasse Procedure(s) Triborough Amendment Protracted Negotiations

2000 – Niskayuna CSD & Teachers Protracted Negotiations – did not start bargaining until after expiration… Long breaks between scheduled negotiating sessions Tentative Agreement – Exec. Committee refused to present to membership! Impasse Procedure: mediation and fact-finding took another year! Parties came to PERB for help in designing an alternative model.

7 Objectives & how each is addressed: “We recognize we need mutual commitment by the parties” “Buy-in” and assessment meeting with PERB Facilitaor Decision makers MUST agree to be at the table “There must be a role for powerful extended groups” (Committees, School Boards) Clarified at initial “Buy-In” meeting Groundrules outline their participation: (1) Exchange (2) Night of Day 2 (3) Night of Day 3 “We want to complete negotiations prior to the budget process and prior to the expiration of the contract!” Set dates: 3 days of continuous bargaining; Exchange of Proposals - 2 weeks prior to bargaining Open exchange of data and collection - several months prior to bargaining Negotiation by local parties concerning “housekeeping” issues (lesser issues including compiling MOA’s

7 Objectives (continued) “There were too many issues by each team” Agreement to limit proposals to no more than 5 each Each team provides rationale at the Exchange of Proposals “We want to avoid Fact-finding!” Agreement to open exchange of information Joint data collection - to prevent breaking off talks to, “get more information.” “Professional negotiators will not participate if role is too unstructured” Assist in data gathering and compilation Facilitate open dialogue by both team members “We need PERB to help us before we reach a crisis.” Facilitation NOT Mediation

RAJ-122 PHASE ONE – Buy In 4-6 months prior to the expiration of the CBA, introductory meeting which includes: The facilitator, professional negotiators, local leadership To assess and establish the level of interest and commitment. Target date for Negotiations is set. Ground Rules are developed which includes: Dates for Exchange of proposals & the Three-Day Negotiations Selection of Negotiating Committees Agreement to Limit the Number of Issues (i.e. 5 issues each) Agreement that lesser “housekeeping” issues may be discussed/bargained PRIOR to FIN Selection of “Off-Site” location for 3-day negotiations

PHASE TWO – Exchange of Proposals Exchange of Proposals - 2 weeks prior to negotiations: The teams meet to exchange proposals and provide rationale (with assistance of the Facilitator… Present at the meeting are the full management & union teams. Examples: Management Committee could include all members of the School Board or legislature Union Committee could include all members of the union’s executive committee. Caucuses by both teams

PHASE THREE – OFF-SITE NEGOTIATIONS Three (3) consecutive full days are conducted off-site. Each Day is scheduled to run from 9AM to 5PM. The parties can mutually agree to extend the time for particular issues. On occasion, the process has been extended to a fourth day.

PHASE FOUR – Meeting of Full Committees After the 2nd Full Day of Negotiations: The teams and the facilitator return to the Employer’s offices for a meeting (usually 7pm). In school districts in NYS, a quorum of the Board of Ed members requires the meeting be opened formally as a, “Special Meeting” – this is done and the meeting moves immediately into executive session. The PERB Facilitator leads the opening discussion about the process. A report is given by members of the negotiating teams, with the extended team members observing (the negotiating teams usually know the likely terms of settlement and so this report is usually VERY positive and upbeat). This is then followed by caucuses of the full committees for the rest of the evening. PURPOSE: Provide opportunity for feedback and for getting further authority for movement if needed, heading into the final day of negotiations.

PHASE FIVE: Full Committee Meeting 2 Following the completion of the 3rd day of negotiations, the negotiation teams and the Facilitator are scheduled to meet with both full committees to: Report on the terms of the tentative agreement and sign the MOA; Alternatively, to consider next steps if no settlement appears imminent. This Meeting is often waived – If the negotiating teams are finished or are writing up the tentative agreement.

PHASE SIX: Ratification and Approval Ratification & Approval of the Tentative Agreement Proceeds in accordance with the requirements of the Taylor Law

OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS Parties can either be driven to FIN –-- or evolve to it Management – The CEO (e.g. School Superintendent, County Executive) must be at the table and supportive of the process Structured Participation – Requires a willingness by the decision- makers to empower smaller bargaining teams than usual.

OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS (Continued) FIN does not require significant costs or financial commitment, thus creating an “ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATIVE”. From PERB’s Perspective: the four-day time commitment is not significantly greater than used for traditional mediation. The Role of Facilitator – differs from that of a mediator. In FIN, the Facilitator’s responsibility is to keep the parties focused and together at the bargaining table.

OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS (Continued) FIN is not “Wealth Dependent” - PERB’s experience so far is that the process has worked even in small and relatively poor locales. Professional Negotiators are very important, and must accept principles Improved Relations between Labor and Management due to reduction/ elimination of the traditional adversary bargaining process. Limitations: FIN is not likely to succeed in settings where a party is determined to maintain the status quo or where a new leadership team hopes to “rewrite the entire agreement”, i.e. parties must be willing to approach FIN in good faith.