GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION
Dear colleagues,
My name is James Hill. I teach in the History department on the Oakland campus, and I’m a member of our union’s bargaining committee.
Grievance and arbitration rights are one of the most important components of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). These are the mechanisms through which disputes between employees and employers are resolved fairly. CBAs will include some type of grievance procedure that stipulates the steps through which disputes progress, for example from the department chair, to the dean or campus president, to the provost. The general goal of a grievance procedure is to resolve problems and conflicts at the lowest level possible. However, if the parties cannot come to an agreement and the steps in the grievance procedure have been exhausted, a case may go to arbitration.
In our current system, there are many different appeals procedures for different policies, and ultimately the administration has the final say on each question. By contrast, labor arbitrators are legally-recognized individuals who review a case and make a binding ruling in a neutral and nonpartisan fashion. Within the negotiations that establish a CBA, both the employer and employees agree to select an agency or association that provides lists of arbitrators, such as the Pennsylvania Board of Mediation or the American Arbitration Association. In the instance that a dispute cannot be resolved under the grievance procedure and moves to arbitration, this agency or association will then provide a number of arbitrators for the employer and employee representatives to choose from. Once an arbitrator is selected, their rulings are legally binding on both parties (employer and employees).
Having binding arbitration as the final step in the grievance process creates an incentive for both parties to resolve disputes at earlier steps. Arbitration is now seen as such a crucial component of labor relations that Section 903 of Pennsylvania’sPublic Employe Relations Act (PERA) requires employers to agree to an arbitration clause in all CBAs.
The United Steelworkers union (USW) has a long history within the broader labor movement of employing arbitration as an alternative to strikes. Nineteenth-century industrial unions, such as the National Labor Union and the Knights of Labor, first advocated for arbitration to resolve disputes with employers. The father of the USW’s first International President, Philip Murray, was a member of and active participant in the Knights of Labor, and Murray’s upbringing led him to favor employing arbitration in the USW’s contracts as well. The USW was also foundational to establishing the legal framework of labor arbitration in the United States. Much of the federal jurisprudence concerning labor arbitration was established by the US Supreme Court in a series of 1960 cases known as the “Steelworkers Trilogy,” with the USW was a litigant in all three. These cases established arbitration as the preferred method of resolving grievances and ensured that arbitration awards would be enforceable in court. In short, our Union has had a foundational place in American labor history, working to establish a means of resolving grievances through a process that is fair to both parties and attempts to avert work stoppages wherever possible.
In solidarity,
James Hill, Visiting Assistant Professor, History, Oakland
Links!
· If someone forwarded this to you, sign up to receive these emails
· Find previous bargaining updates here
· Get in touch with your Council rep
· Get involved with the Communication and Action Team
My name is James Hill. I teach in the History department on the Oakland campus, and I’m a member of our union’s bargaining committee.
Grievance and arbitration rights are one of the most important components of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). These are the mechanisms through which disputes between employees and employers are resolved fairly. CBAs will include some type of grievance procedure that stipulates the steps through which disputes progress, for example from the department chair, to the dean or campus president, to the provost. The general goal of a grievance procedure is to resolve problems and conflicts at the lowest level possible. However, if the parties cannot come to an agreement and the steps in the grievance procedure have been exhausted, a case may go to arbitration.
In our current system, there are many different appeals procedures for different policies, and ultimately the administration has the final say on each question. By contrast, labor arbitrators are legally-recognized individuals who review a case and make a binding ruling in a neutral and nonpartisan fashion. Within the negotiations that establish a CBA, both the employer and employees agree to select an agency or association that provides lists of arbitrators, such as the Pennsylvania Board of Mediation or the American Arbitration Association. In the instance that a dispute cannot be resolved under the grievance procedure and moves to arbitration, this agency or association will then provide a number of arbitrators for the employer and employee representatives to choose from. Once an arbitrator is selected, their rulings are legally binding on both parties (employer and employees).
Having binding arbitration as the final step in the grievance process creates an incentive for both parties to resolve disputes at earlier steps. Arbitration is now seen as such a crucial component of labor relations that Section 903 of Pennsylvania’sPublic Employe Relations Act (PERA) requires employers to agree to an arbitration clause in all CBAs.
The United Steelworkers union (USW) has a long history within the broader labor movement of employing arbitration as an alternative to strikes. Nineteenth-century industrial unions, such as the National Labor Union and the Knights of Labor, first advocated for arbitration to resolve disputes with employers. The father of the USW’s first International President, Philip Murray, was a member of and active participant in the Knights of Labor, and Murray’s upbringing led him to favor employing arbitration in the USW’s contracts as well. The USW was also foundational to establishing the legal framework of labor arbitration in the United States. Much of the federal jurisprudence concerning labor arbitration was established by the US Supreme Court in a series of 1960 cases known as the “Steelworkers Trilogy,” with the USW was a litigant in all three. These cases established arbitration as the preferred method of resolving grievances and ensured that arbitration awards would be enforceable in court. In short, our Union has had a foundational place in American labor history, working to establish a means of resolving grievances through a process that is fair to both parties and attempts to avert work stoppages wherever possible.
In solidarity,
James Hill, Visiting Assistant Professor, History, Oakland
Links!
· If someone forwarded this to you, sign up to receive these emails
· Find previous bargaining updates here
· Get in touch with your Council rep
· Get involved with the Communication and Action Team
