Public school employer and employee leaders' attitudes toward contract dispute resolution devices

Michigan is a state with a relatively long history in formalized employee-employer relations in the public sector. In 1965, the Public Employees Relations Act was established. Under this Act most public employees had the right to organize, to bargain, to hold representative elections, to expect determination of appropriate bargaining units and to seek redress of unfair labor practices. Employers were obligated to bargain in good faith. Mediation and factfinding could be initiated by employers or employees in case of impasse. Strikes were illegal under the Act, but severe penalties for striking, present in previous acts, were removed. This Public Employee Relations Act was amended in 1972 to provide for compulsory arbitration of contract disputes for police and fire fighters. Factfinding remained the terminal point in the intervention process for all other public sector disputes.

The establishment of interest arbitration for "essential" public employees, i.e., police and fire fighters, saw a dramatic decline in the number of strikes among those groups. However, among "non~essential" employees, the number of strikes in Michigan increased dramatically and Michigan earned the dubious distinction of being one of the most strike-prone in the nation for the public sector. The vast majority of these strikes involved public school teachers--mostly in elementary and secondary schools.

The primary research technique utilized in the study was the Likert-type questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate their feelings toward 39 statements (strongly agree to strongly disagree). The responses to the statements, all of which were directed toward aspects of contract dispute resolution, were tabulated according to groups. The group to which the instruments were sent were the local school board chairmen, the local superintendents of schools, the presidents of local teacher associations or unions and the local staff of NEA affiliate associations.

Analysis of variance and the Duncan multiple-range test were applied to the data to test the statistical significance of mean responses by group.

The basic conclusions reached through this study, were as follows:

1. Public school employer leaders did not agree that compulsory and binding arbitration are effective contract settlement devices. Teacher organization leaders disagree with those sentiments.
2. Employer leaders and employee leaders disagreed on whether arbitration is in the public interest. Employers say not, employees disagreed. They agree that binding arbitration serves the public interest if it eliminates strikes.
3. Employee leaders found arbitrators better qualified and competent than employer leaders found them.
4. Employers supported mediation of disputes while teacher leaders question its effectiveness.
5. Staff did not agree that factfinding was an effective settlement device.
6. All groups agreed that voluntary arbitration is effective.
7. All groups agreed that the public prefers arbitration to job actions.
8. All groups agreed that parties in dispute will only submit to arbitration when it appears to be to their advantage.

This study suggested continued public school labor unrest in Michigan; political confrontation over compulsary arbitration for "non-essential" public employees and the need to experiment with mediation-arbitration as a contract dispute settlement device.