 |
|
MRSC has joined with Janice Corbin and Janet May, Partners, Sound Employment Solutions, Rhonda Hilyer, President, Agreement Dynamics,and Bruce Schroeder, Employment/Litigation Attorney, Summit Law Group, to bring you the "HR Advisor" article series on employment and labor law issues affecting Washington local governments. The "HR Advisor" will feature a new article each month with timely HR management information and advice you can use.*
Transforming Labor Relations
December 2006
Rhonda Hilyer
Agreement
Dynamics, Inc.
The June 28, 2006 Los Angeles Times headline read: "3 Unions, MTA Reach Rare Accord: The 3-year deal represents the first time in almost 10 years that the agency’s labor negotiations have ended without a strike."
This year’s bargaining between LA METRO and the United Transportation Union (UTU), representing 4800 bus drives and rail operators; the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), representing 2000 maintenance and services workers; and the Transportation Communications Union (TCU), representing 700 clerical workers, concluded for the first time ever before each contract’s expiration date. Hailed as landmark agreements by both labor and management representatives, all parties expressed hope that a new era of positive working relations is on the horizon.
This round of negotiations was in sharp contrast to past bargaining efforts. Three years ago the mechanics (ATU) walked off the job resulting in a shutdown of public transit for 35 days. Three years prior, it was the drivers (UTU) who struck for 32 days. In 2003 the strike cost the local economy an estimated $140 million dollars.
Few people expected that the contentious labor relations history at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority could be overcome, much less in one contract cycle. Amalgamated Transit Union President Neil Silver summed up the prevailing skepticism when he commented on the MTA’s proposed interested-based bargaining approach: “I figured it wouldn’t work and I didn’t really want to partake in a time wasting event,” he said. “Later, it did work and this is the result, I’m very happy.”
UTU General Chairman, James Williams, told the media, “We are elated with this—we’re looking forward to moving on. We recognize there’s a new day and we like to say there’s a new sheriff in town.”
Since the negotiations’ successful conclusion, labor and management have continued to improve day-to-day working relationships. All supervisors, managers, and shop stewards have been trained in contract interpretation and implementation. Labor relations processes have been revamped and extensive efforts are underway to resolve the agency’s over 1000 outstanding grievances that are slated for arbitration.
What made this transformation possible? Many factors were put in play to achieve win-win results. The top 10 are cited below (not in any priority order).
- Management Dream Team. A unique operations-focused management bargaining team was assembled by Chief negotiator John B. Catoe, Jr. who is the MTA’s Deputy Chief Executive Officer. Nearly a year before the labor contracts expired, John brought in management bargaining consultant, Gayland Moffat. Together they recruited key operations managers (most of whom had no prior labor negotiation experience) from across the agency. These managers were highly respected by all parties as strong leaders, seasoned professionals, and were viewed as open to finding new solutions. Team members had diverse backgrounds and perspectives, yet they worked together collaboratively throughout the process. For many months, they met nearly every day, often engaging in spirited debates, but always listening and respecting each other’s opinions.
- Early, Thorough Homework. With the help of outside
labor bargaining consultant Gayland Moffat, the management team
identified stakeholders, interests and positions. They collected and
analyzed industry data and developed a comprehensive economic
picture that included national and local settlements, inflation
rates, consumer price index, local cost of living as well as the
actual cost of a strike. They developed and achieved consensus from
the 13-member Board and CEO Roger Snoble on the agency’s
interests, which were:
- Create a survivable economic environment and eliminate the structural deficit.
- Improve employee and labor relations.
- Retain and recruit a professional, motivated and committed workforce.
- They also got buy-in to utilize an “interest-based” bargaining approach.
- Negotiating Authority Determined Upfront. John Catoe and his team analyzed and determined what they believed to be a necessary settlement framework at least 4 months before negotiations began. After many meetings and discussions, their outline was approved by the Board along with authority to negotiate up to $X million dollars. The Board and the management team had a clear sense of parameters early on and they believed those parameters to be reasonable and supportive of all parties’ interests.
- Training and Facilitation. Labor and management members of all 3 bargaining teams received interest-based bargaining training before their negotiations started. Rhonda Hilyer of Agreement Dynamics, Inc. provided the training and facilitated the ATU and UTU negotiation sessions. She often worked separately with the parties and helped them to utilize “interests” rather than positions or demands as much as possible. Training was also provided to MTA managers, supervisors and Board members and staff to maximize understanding and support for this approach.
- Respectful Tone Set and Kept.
The management team committed to a set of behaviors that they
pledged to the unions to keep, no matter what. And they did.
Ultimately, their consistent use of these operating principles--even
during difficult meetings--built a sense of credibility and mutual
respect that transformed the labor-management relationship. This was
the list they lived by:
- Show respect at all times
- Communicate openly and politely
- Use accurate information and data
- Advocate interests rigorously, but never discourteously
- Avoid surprising or undermining the other team’s people or interests
- Act professionally at all times
- Listen, comprehend… then speak
- Strive to solve problems jointly
- Address problems locally, quickly
- Maintain integrity in personal and agency communications
- Make decisions with improved employee relations and customer service in view
- Food and Celebrations Built Bridges. Management and union negotiators made it a point to eat lunch and sometimes breakfast together. Usually, they brought in food. Sometimes team members cooked tamales or jambalaya and served one another. Birthdays were celebrated in a variety of ways so that the stress of intense bargaining sessions was balanced with positive relationship-building activities.
- Humor Broke the Tension. Members of all the bargaining teams reported that they had never laughed so much during a negotiation. Richard Hunt, General Manager, San Fernando Valley Service Sector, interrupted a particularly difficult exchange by telling a joke that had all parties smiling. The facilitator provided signs that each individual could hold up when they wanted to make a point with humor, rather than rancor. Carolyn Flowers, Interim Chief Operating Officer, often restated the chief management negotiator’s points in a way that demonstrated openness and good humor.
- Disclosure was Maximized. Throughout the negotiation sessions, John Catoe and his team always went the extra step to give the Union officials heads up on issues that were likely to be raised with the Board or potential operational changes that might come under consideration. Data was presented in such a comprehensive fashion that management highlighted settlements that were above the norm and pointed out other information that was advantageous to the union’s arguments. This openness built trust and as a result both the ATU and UTU accepted the management team’s analysis of financial data.
- Interests Ultimately Trumped
Positions. The transition to joint problem solving with both
parties’ interests in mind evolved gradually as negotiations
progressed. In the later stages of both the UTU and ATU talks, some
important issues were resolved this way. Two examples are provided
below.
ATU Example - Service Attendants
- Two-wage tiers of service attendants with no movement between the two were in place.
- The Union had an interest in providing a way to move from the lower tier to the higher tier.
- Management had an interest in lowering the absenteeism of service attendants.
- Interest-based solution: Each time a vacancy occurs in the top tier, two top tier vacancies are created. The vacancies will be filled with the 2 most senior lower tier service attendants who have had no attendance violations in the past year. They will go through a 4-year progression to get to the top tier. Their progression is halted if they violate the attendance policy. They continue the progression after one year of no attendance policy violations.
UTU Example - Wage Order #9
- California law requires that Operators receive 2 ten-minute rest periods and a 30-minute meal break (unpaid).
- Union and management had an interest of being in compliance with the law.
- The Union had an interest in making sure their members got these breaks and in ensuring that the Union was protected in any legal proceedings regarding the wage order.
- Management had an interest of getting into compliance at the lowest possible cost.
- Interest-based solution: The EOL and other schedule recovery times will now be used as the rest and meal time for the Operators. These times can be provided in any time increments as long as the total time in a day meets the 50 minute minimum. This will require adjusting running and recovery times in the runs.
- Pivotal Role of the Mayor. LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s term as Chair of the MTA Board ended the day after the labor contracts expired. He encouraged all parties to do interest-based negotiations and told the Chief management negotiator and the union officers, “You will come to agreement by June 28.” Through the process he kept the pressure on to finish early and he stayed in touch with the negotiators while also ensuring that the teams were able to craft settlements on their own. In the past, elected officials and national figures such as Jesse Jackson had come in at the eleventh hour. This time the bargaining teams were empowered and encouraged to finish the job themselves. The Mayor’s understanding and support of interest-based processes along with his passion for real labor-management change kept all parties focused on doing their part.
| Bruce Schroeder is an employment / litigation attorney with Summit Law Group, Seattle. Bruce's practice is concentrated on representing management in the entire range of employment law matters. More . |  |
|
Janice Corbin is a partner with
Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janice has over 15 years of
human resources experience with the Seattle Police Department and the
International Harvester Truck Company and has worked in the law enforcement
field for over 22 years.
More.
Janet May is a partner and attorney with Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janet has over ten years of experience in the labor and employment law field, and has represented both management and labor. More. |
 |
| Rhonda Hilyer, President and Founder of Agreement Dynamics, is an international consultant with a reputation for helping convert traditional, conflict-based environments into productive, collaborative ones. More. |  |
*The Articles appearing in the "HR Advisor" column represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Municipal Research & Services Center.