TABLE OF CONTENTS

**PAGE NO**.

I. INTRODUCTION

# A. Agency Mission.........................................................................6

# B. FMCS Services..........................................................................6

1\. Collective Bargaining Mediation -- Initial and

Successor Contract
Negotiations........................................................6

2\. Relationship Development and Training
Programs............................\....7

3\. Arbitration
Services...................................................................7

4\. Grants
Program.....................................................................\....8

5\. FMCS
Institute.........................................................................8

> 6\. Employment
> Mediation...............................................................8

7\. International Training and Exchange
...............................................9

8\. Youth Violence Prevention and Conflict
Resolution.............................9

# C. Nature of Collective Bargaining in FY 2003......................................10

# D. GPRA Goals Achieved in FY 2003................................................11

E. Other
Initiatives........................................................................12

1\. Strategic Plan

2\. Website

3\. Access to Neutrals

F.
Summary.................................................................................14

II\. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
MEDIATION..........................................15

# A. Collective Bargaining Mediation Process..........................................15

# B. FY 2003 Cases of Significance......................................................15

> 1\. Pacific Maritime Association/International Longshore and Warehouse
> Union, AFL-CIO
>
> 2\. Verizon/International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
> and Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO
>
> 3\. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems / Pascagoula Metal Trades
> Department, IBEW, IAM, and OPEIU
>
> 4\. Regional Transportation District (RTD)/Amalgamated Transit Union
>
> 5\. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics/International Association of Aerospace
> and Machinists, Local 776
>
> 6\. Minnesota Hospitals Association/SEIU
>
> 7\. Waukesha Engine/IAM
>
> 8\. Williams Controls/UAW
>
> 9\. Southwest Washington Health District and Clark County Health
> Department/LIUNA
>
> 10\. San Francisco Ballet/International Association of Musicians

C. Collective Bargaining Mediation Program
Data.....................................25

III\. INITIAL CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS...............................................\...28

A. Initial Contract Negotiations and
Processes....................................\.....28

B. Initial Contract Bargaining
Data.....................................................29

IV\. RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS...........\...\...31

A. Relationship Development and Training
Programs..................................31

B. FY 2003 Cases of
Significance.....................................................\.....31

> 1\. Longmont Foods d/b/a ConAgra/UFCW Local 990 and
>
> IOUE Local 1
>
> 2\. Environmental Protection Agency/AFGE
>
> 3\. Southeast Navy Regional Navy Command / American Federation of
> Government Employees (AFGE), International Association of Firefighters
> (IAFF), and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE)
>
> 4\. Perkins School District
>
> 5\. Southern University Law School and Appalachian School of Law
> Mediation Training

C. Program
Data.....................................................................33

V. ARBITRATION
SERVICES................................................................34

A. Arbitration
Services....................................................................34

B. FY 2003
Accomplishments...........................................................34

C. Arbitration Program
Data.............................................................35

VI\.
GRANTS.....................................................................................39

A. Grants
Program.....................................................................\....39

B. FY 2003 Grant Funding
Summary................................................\...39

VII\. FMCS
INSTITUTE........................................................................41

A. Purpose and Course Offering

VIII\. FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
MEDIATION...........................................42

A. Services
Provided....................................................................42

1\. Federal Employment
Mediation...........................................42

IX\. INTERNATIONAL TRAINING AND EXCHANGE PROGRAMS..............43

# a. Baltic Mediation Training Project

> b\. Mediation and Arbitration Services in Bulgaria
>
> c\. South Korea
>
> d\. Conciliation Institutions in Peru

e\. Serbia and Montenegro

> f\. Argentina
>
> g\. Mozambique

![](media/image1.png){width="1.7527777777777778in"
height="1.4048611111111111in"} ![](media/image2.png)

This report details the activities of this agency in fiscal year 2003.

Today, technology is advancing at an accelerated rate, re-defining the
way business is done, creating new industries and rendering others
obsolete. The duration of labor contracts is lengthening, unions and
corporations are merging and consolidating, and health care costs
continue to rise. As tens of thousands of jobs move overseas because of
economic globalization, free trade has engendered a new set of
international competitors for U.S. companies.

Since my confirmation in August 2002, I have been personally involved in
two high profile work disputes with a significant impact on the nation's
economy: the West Coast ports dispute between September and November
2002, and a dispute involving Verizon Communications Inc., in July
through August, 2003. Both situations exemplify the issues that continue
to plague the labor management community, in particular, the use of
technology, the desire by employers to implement cost-saving
technological advancements, rising health care costs, and the needs of
business to respond to rapidly changing economic conditions.

Although the West Coast ports and Verizon disputes received significant
publicity during fiscal year 2003, our field mediators were involved in
6640 collective bargaining disputes nationwide. In 75% of those cases,
we assisted the parties in achieving collective bargaining settlements.
In addition, our mediators continue to train the labor-management
community on methods designed to improve labor-management relations. We
provided relationship development and training programs 2594 times
during this fiscal year. Our employment mediation services to federal,
state and local governments continue in wide demand as more agencies
have turned to FMCS for alternatives to courtroom litigation.

The American workplace is changing and the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service will change with it so that we can continue to
provide state-of-the-art assistance to employers and employees as they
confront the challenges of modern labor-management relations.

Peter Hurtgen, Director

**I. INTRODUCTION**

**A. Agency Mission**

> For fifty-six years, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
> (FMCS) has carried out its mission of preserving and promoting
> labor-management peace. The FMCS was created by Congress as an
> independent agency by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947.
> Highly trained mediators provide conflict resolution services to our
> nation's employers and their unionized employees. Their primary
> mission is to prevent or minimize interruptions to the free flow of
> commerce growing out of labor disputes and to assist these parties in
> improving their relationship. The core mission of the Service is
> collective bargaining mediation. It is a voluntary process in which
> mediators serve as third-party neutrals to facilitate the settlement
> of issues in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements.
>
> **B. FMCS Services**
>
> In carrying out its mission, the FMCS provides the following services
> to the public:
>
> 1\. Collective Bargaining Mediation -- Initial and Successor Contracts
>
> 2\. Relationship Development and Training Programs
>
> 3\. Arbitration Services
>
> 4\. Grants to Promote Labor-Management Cooperation
>
> 5\. Training for Labor and Management by the FMCS Institute for
> Conflict Management
>
> 6\. Employment Mediation (Federal employment mediation and private
> sector employment mediation)
>
> 7\. Training and Exchange Programs for International Organizations and
> Government
>
> 8\. Youth Violence Prevention in Schools and Conflict Resolution
>
> **[1. Collective Bargaining Mediation: Initial and Successor Contract
> Negotiations]{.underline}**
>
> Collective bargaining mediation is a voluntary process that occurs
> when a third-party neutral assists the parties in reaching agreement
> in contract negotiations. This includes initial contract negotiations,
> which take place between an employer and a newly certified or
> recognized union representing its employees, and negotiations for
> successor collective bargaining agreements. Mediation services are
> provided not only to the private sector, but also to the public
> sector, including federal agencies, and state and local governments.
> Mediators have no authority to impose settlements; their only tool is
> the power of persuasion. Through collective bargaining mediation, FMCS
> helps avert or minimize the impact of work stoppages on the U.S.
> economy.
>
> In FY 2003, FMCS mediators were actively involved in 6640 collective
> bargaining contract negotiations in every major industry and service
> throughout the United States, a decrease of about 117 cases from last
> fiscal year. However, the number of contracts expiring this year was
> far less than last fiscal year. In FY 2002, 45,339 contracts expired.
> In this fiscal year, only 37,844 contracts expired, which explains the
> reduction in dispute activity.

For data regarding collective bargaining mediation in successor
contracts and initial contract negotiations, and cases of significance
in each category during this fiscal year, see Sections II and III.

**[2. Relationship Development and Training Programs:]{.underline}**

Although our primary focus continues to be resolution of conflict as it
arises, prevention of conflict at the outset is also an important goal.
Since its inception, FMCS has offered relationship-building training
programs designed to improve the labor-management relationship and
develop approaches toward collective bargaining that prevent friction or
disputes from arising. The training improves the quality of the parties'
relationship and makes mediation more effective. When such training is
requested, the mediator determines the parties' needs and designs a
program that is specifically tailored for those parties. FMCS offers a
wide array of these services to address workplace problems and in fiscal
year 2003, this work represented 16% of our agency activity. FY 2003
data shows that the number of training programs provided is consistent
with last fiscal year.

Data from fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002 show that roughly 22% of
collective bargaining agreements exceed 3 years in duration. This
increase in contract duration has created a demand for training programs
that emphasize the importance of collaborative working relationships.

In addition to our training programs, field mediators continuously
participate in outreach activities by lecturing at universities,
seminars and conferences. They also meet with local leaders in the
collective bargaining community. Through this outreach activity, the
labor-management community and the general public gain an understanding
of mediation, arbitration, collective bargaining, and the agency's
services.

For data regarding preventative mediation and cases of significance
during this year, see Section IV.

**[3. Arbitration Services]{.underline}**

National labor policy favors the settlement of contractual disputes by
arbitration. When conflicts arise over the interpretation or
implementation of a contract or contract provision, FMCS assists through
voluntary arbitration. A professional arbitrator, acting in a
quasi-judicial capacity, hears arguments, weighs evidence and renders a
decision to settle the dispute, usually binding on both parties. On
request, FMCS Arbitration Services provides the disputing parties with a
"panel" of qualified, private labor arbitrators from which they select
the arbitrator to hear their case. The panels are drawn from an FMCS
computerized nationwide roster of 1400 labor arbitrators. To join the
FMCS roster, arbitrators must be approved by an Arbitration Review
Board, which meets quarterly to consider new applicants. There is also
an arbitration user focus group that reviews and makes recommendations
to the FMCS Director on changes in arbitration service, policies and
procedures. The FMCS holds annual Arbitrator Symposia where arbitrators
have an opportunity to discuss and share the latest information about
their profession.

For FY 2003 data regarding arbitration services, see Section V.

**[4. Grants Program]{.underline}**

> The 1978 Labor-Management Cooperation Act authorizes and directs the
> Service to encourage and support joint labor-management committees
> "established for the purpose of improving labor management
> relationships, job security and organizational effectiveness,
> enhancing economic development or involving workers in decisions
> affecting their jobs including improving communication with respect to
> subjects of mutual interest and concern.\"[^1] Congress funds this
> initiative in the Agency's annual appropriations and grants are
> distributed to encourage labor-management committees to develop
> innovative joint approaches to workplace problems. In the past,
> committees have focused their efforts on improving labor-management
> relationships, job security, organizational effectiveness, economic
> development, health care cost containment solutions, competitiveness
> of a region's hotel industry, economic development, and public sector
> management. All committees must present measurable results of their
> efforts for grant funding. The rules, regulations and instructions for
> preparing grant applications are published annually in the Federal
> Register.

For FY 2003 data regarding the grants program, see Section VI.

**[5. FMCS Institute]{.underline}**

The FMCS Institute for Conflict Management provides training and
education to labor and management practitioners in a classroom format.
Institute classroom training, provided away from the workplace,
maximizes communication among all the participants. The Institute offers
training in practical conflict resolution skills, collective bargaining,
arbitrator and arbitration skills-building, facilitation process skills,
multi-party facilitation, cultural diversity, equal employment
opportunity complaint mediation skills, and workplace violence
prevention. The Institute runs as a reimbursable program and is funded
by fees received for delivery of training.

For data regarding the FMCS Institute course offerings for this fiscal
year, see Section VII.

**[6. Employment Mediation:]{.underline}**

Outside the collective bargaining arena, FMCS has provided employment
mediations services to the federal sector and to other state and local
governments. These mediation services include resolution of
employment-related disputes. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act
of 1990, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, and the Administrative
Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 expanded FMCS's role as a provider of
these services. The legislative design was to expand the use of
alternative dispute resolution throughout the federal government, reduce
litigation costs, and promote better government decision-making. We
provide consultation, training, dispute resolution systems design and
facilitation services to many federal agencies, and to state and local
agencies. Employment mediation is also provided to the private sector to
resolve workplace disputes falling outside of the traditional collective
bargaining context, i.e., equal employment opportunity disputes.

**[7. International Training and Exchange:]{.underline}**

Our work extends beyond the nation's borders. FMCS plays an important
role in promoting collective bargaining and conflict resolution in other
countries. Our international work is a small, but integral part of our
services. Other nations struggle, as we do, to compete effectively in a
globally integrated marketplace. Part of that struggle includes an
assessment of the role and structure of the country's labor relations
systems. Other nations and foreign organizations have sought our
assistance in designing systems that resolve and prevent industrial
conflict where a formal system has not been developed to manage it.
International training programs are also a knowledge-sharing experience:
we are "cross-trained" as we gain familiarity with complex issues
affecting the global economy. As a result, we are more effective in
assisting labor and management in resolving disputes with international
implications.

For data regarding employment mediation and international programs this
fiscal year, see Section VIII.

**[8. Youth Violence Prevention and Conflict Resolution:]{.underline}**

This program provides a means of nonviolent conflict resolution for
students and school staff. Stakeholders from each community, including
teachers, parents, students and law enforcement officials work
collaboratively with mediators to develop unique software applications
(using the Agency's TAGS system) for each community. The goal is to
improve the school environment by helping students and staff address
underlying conflicts that are at the root of disputes that become
violent or hurtful. Since its inception in fiscal year 2000, the Youth
Violence Prevention and Conflict Resolution program has expanded from
six communities to 10 communities, representing a cross-section of our
nation's youth.

In fiscal year 2003, we held a stakeholders meeting to determine how
various communities were utilizing the program. The University of North
Texas published a paper evaluating the program and found that, using
TAGS, communities, schools, parents, teachers and students are very
effective in airing differences through constructive online
problem-solving and anonymous surveys. One site used TAGS to administer
a tolerance survey to address students' beliefs about barriers among
groups and supported a "youth court" for students to track court cases
of juvenile offenders. A second community used TAGS to administer
student surveys on tobacco use, providing information to school
administrators about student perceptions. A third community designed a
project Web site that allowed anonymous reporting of vandalism. A fourth
community created a "Teen Mediafest," encouraging students to generate
creative messages to their peers addressing violence, mental and
physical health, and drug and alcohol use. Finally, one FMCS community
partner received the Illinois Governor's Cup Award, recognizing
outstanding community effort in youth violence prevention.

While TAGS technology is extremely useful for higher level elementary
and middle school age children, the technology is too advanced for
younger children. As a result, during this fiscal year, we developed an
interactive CD-ROM prototype aimed at teaching conflict resolution
skills to pre-school and elementary school children.

**C. [Nature of Collective Bargaining in FY 2003]{.underline}**

As the nation's economy tightened, but appeared slowly headed toward
recovery, the war in Iraq created new economic concerns. Those concerns,
coupled with the lingering impacts of 9-11, continued dramatic increased
health insurance costs, pension cost pressures caused by dramatic
declines in financial markets and an aging workforce, technological
changes impacting the nature of the work and where the work is
performed, as well as increased global competition, impacted collective
bargaining negotiations over the last year.

Fiscal year 2003 was a critical bargaining year, with major contracts
expiring in the following industries: aerospace, defense,
transportation, shipping, telecommunications, food manufacturing,
construction, health care, as well as federal, state and local
governments. While the West Coast ports and Verizon disputes remained in
the public eye, mediators were actively involved in 6640 collective
bargaining contract negotiations in every major industry and service
throughout the United States during the fiscal year. With our
assistance, 4988 contracts were reached. As a result, 75% of our dispute
cases resulted in negotiated settlements.

[]{.mark}

With respect to work stoppages, there were 289 work stoppages during
this fiscal year. The West Coast ports dispute involved a work stoppage
of approximately 10 days, with a significant impact on the nation's
economy.[^2] We have been actively involved in settling severe work
stoppages around the nation, including a 14 day strike involving 4000
Lockheed Martin machinists who manufacture F-16 fighter jets, a series
of one-day rolling strikes by 6000 service and maintenance employees
working in 14 Minneapolis/St. Paul hospitals and clinics, and a 55-day
strike among 500 employees employed by Waukesha Engine.

We have been equally successful at averting strikes. We averted a work
stoppage at Verzion, where a strike would have involved close to 80,000
employees and phone service in 13 states. Strikes were also prevented in
a defense-related dispute involving 10,000 Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
employees, and 2000 employees of the Denver Colorado Regional
Transportation District, which provides mass transit to 250,000 riders.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**[D. GPRA Achievements:]{.underline}**

The Government Performance and Results Act requires all federal agencies
to identify performance goals. For every service provided, we identified
specific goals for fiscal year 2003 and the chart below identifies our
performance during this fiscal year:

[]{.mark}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Service**             **Goals/Objectives**    **Actual Performance**
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  []{.mark}               []{.mark}               []{.mark}

  **Dispute Mediation**   1\. Close 14,740 cases  1\. Closed 19,306 cases

  []{.mark}               2\. Assign 32.9% of     2\. Assigned 34% of
                          active cases[^3]        active cases

  **Arbitration           1\. Provide 19,021      1\. Provided 19,039
  Services**              panels                  panels.

  []{.mark}               2\. Average number of   2\. Average workdays
                          days between receipt of 7.61 from receipt of
                          request and panel       panel request to panel
                          provided should not     provided
                          exceed 5 workdays       

  **Employment Mediation  1\. Close 829 cases     1\. Closed 1,310 cases
  (conflict resolution                            
  services to state,                              
  local and federal                               
  government sectors and                          
  private sector)**                               

  []{.mark}               2\. Monitor number of   2\. 7,077 participants
                          participants exposed to exposed to dispute
                          dispute resolution      resolution techniques
                          techniques              

  []{.mark}               3\. Settle 60% of       3\. 47% of non-EEOC
                          non-EEOC                settled

  []{.mark}               4\. Settle 52% of EEOC  4\. Settled 50% of EEOC
                          cases                   cases

  **Regulatory            1\. Close 5 regulatory  1\. Closed 3[^4]
  Negotiations**          negotiations            

  []{.mark}               2\. Assist 75           2\. Assisted 122
                          organizations           organizations

  []{.mark}               []{.mark}               []{.mark}

  **International         1\. Assist 75 foreign   1\. Assisted 60 foreign
  Efforts**               governments             governments

  []{.mark}               []{.mark}               []{.mark}

  **FMCS Institute**      1\. Provide 12 courses  1\. Provided 13 courses

  **Grants Program**      1\. Provide 18 grants   1\. Provided 13
                          to labor-management     grants[^5]
                          committees              

  []{.mark}               []{.mark}               []{.mark}

  **Regional              1\. Conduct 75          1\. Conducted 67
  Labor-Management        Agency-sponsored        Agency-sponsored
  Conferences**           conferences at regional conferences at the
                          level                   regional level

  []{.mark}               []{.mark}               []{.mark}
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{.mark}

In addition to the above chart, it should be noted that the Agency
continues its success rate in dispute cases. In this fiscal year, we
settled 75% of our collective bargaining mediation cases. Although we
were unable to secure collective bargaining agreements in 25% of our
cases, this does not mean that we were not otherwise successful. In this
regard, the mediator could have assisted the parties in reducing the
number of open or unresolved issues.

[]{.mark}

Another important measurement of success includes the number of times
the labor-management community consented to a mediator's intervention.
As noted above, not every case is assigned to a mediator. Once a case is
assigned, the mediator contacts the parties to offer his/her assistance.
Even where cases are assigned to mediators and the mediator offers
assistance, the parties must consent to the mediator's intervention.
Mediation is a voluntary process and even a skilled mediator cannot
intervene in the absence of consent.

[]{.mark}

Bearing this in mind, in fiscal year 2003, we assigned 19,516 cases to
mediators. It is presumed that, in each case, the assigned mediator
contacted the parties and offered his/her services to resolve the
dispute. Of those assigned cases, the parties accepted mediation 6640,
roughly 34% of the time, consistent with last year's rate of 35%. Over
the next fiscal year, we will work to improve our penetration rate by
continuously educating the public about the mediation process and its
advantages in order to increase the number of situations where our
services can be utilized and work stoppages avoided.

**[E. New Initiatives:]{.underline}**

**[1. Strategic Plan:]{.underline}**

The Agency's five-year strategic plan was recently approved by the
Office of Management and Budget. To chart the Agency's future course, we
looked at certain trends that have a significant impact on the workplace
including (1) the cost and complexity of health care; (2) the effects of
globalization on the workplace; (3) the application and importance of
technology in the workplace; and (4) workplace litigation and conflict
focusing on individual employees outside the scope of collective
bargaining and focusing on individual employees. With these factors in
mind, we crafted our strategic goals, which focus on:

1.  Minimizing the number and severity of work stoppages influencing
    interstate commerce, national security, and/or the U.S. health care
    industry;

2.  Increasing the number of collective bargaining partners with an
    ongoing commitment to improving their relationship;

3.  Facilitating a commitment to, and development of, systems for
    handling workplace disputes arising outside of the collective
    bargaining context, by labor and management at a significant number
    of organizations;

4.  Assisting labor and management to effectively deal with major issues
    that drive conflict in the evolving workplace, including health
    care, technology, effects of globalization, and diversity; and

5.  Sharing knowledge gained from the Agency's experience in workplace
    conflict resolution with those outside of the workplace context such
    as schools, courts, and international organizations.

The Agency's plan details the strategies we will employ to achieve these
goals and our annual performance plans will address specific performance
measurements we will use to determine our success in each area.

**[2. Web site]{.underline}**

In fiscal year 2003, the Agency launched its new Web site. The Web site
was designed with the President's Management Agenda E-government
Initiative in mind: it affords the public easy access to the Agency and
its programs. The Web site provides a wealth of information about each
Agency department and the services available to the labor-management
community. The Web site has the following capabilities:

-   On-line filing of statutorily-required contract expiration notices
    (F-7 forms) through the website;

-   On-line filing of arbitration panel requests;

-   On-line filing of grant applications;

-   On-line quarterly submission of grantee progress reports;

-   On-line registration for Institute courses;

-   Publication of FMCS-related Federal Register announcements;

-   Repository of all Agency reports to Congress, including Annual
    Reports, Performance Plans and Strategic Plans;

-   Regular updates on cases of national significance (i.e., West Coast
    Ports dispute and current Verizon dispute) with links to newspaper
    articles of interest;

-   Video messages from the Director, speeches delivered by staff
    members, and articles published by employees;

-   Links to TAGS e-conferences;

-   Cases of interest and best practices are regularly posted; and

-   Communication for the public, via e-mail, to Agency personnel.

**[3. Access to Neutrals Program]{.underline}**

In FY 2003 we proposed a registry of neutrals program. The purpose of
the initiative is to develop a register of individuals, approved by the
Agency, to whom we can refer employment-related disputes (i.e., EEO
cases) where the Agency might be unable to assign a mediator to attend
to that dispute. A description of the program was published in the
Federal Register in May 2003. We have reviewed all of the public
comments and, during fiscal year 2004, we will meet with interested
parties to address questions and issues related to implementation of the
program.

## [F. Summary]{.underline}

All FMCS activity is aimed at promoting and improving conflict
resolution and collective bargaining processes in the United States.
This helps American businesses become and remain more competitive in the
international marketplace and increases the quality of working life of
American workers. Through collective bargaining mediation, FMCS averts
or minimizes the impact of work stoppages on the U.S. economy, either in
initial bargaining relationships, or in mature bargaining relationships.
Relationship development and training programs offer labor and
management the skills to improve long-term workplace relationships.
Arbitration provides the internal jurisprudence that helps the parties
administer their collective bargaining agreements. The grants program
promotes innovative, joint approaches to building effective
labor-management relationships. Through federal employment mediation,
FMCS helps government agencies reduce the likelihood of litigation,
speeds up federal processes, and improves the delivery of regulated
government services. Our international training and exchange program
offers training to foreign governments in these same techniques,
promoting the establishment of sound labor-management relations and
conflict resolution systems in strategic areas of the world.

The complexity of issues in today's collective bargaining arena requires
us to play an increasingly important role in critical negotiations and
in guiding the parties to constructive agreements.

**[II. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MEDIATION:]{.underline}**

**[A. Mediation Process:]{.underline}**

> Collective bargaining mediation is a voluntary process which occurs
> when a third-party neutral assists the parties in reaching agreement
> in contract negotiations. This includes initial contract negotiations,
> which take place between an employer and a newly certified or
> recognized union representing its employees, and negotiations for
> successor collective bargaining agreements.

FMCS mediators are in touch with both parties even before negotiations
begin. The first contact with a mediator is triggered by the legally
required notice of intent to open a collective bargaining agreement, or
a certification. During negotiations, mediators use their skills to
guide the parties to a settlement acceptable to both sides. Mediators
may make suggestions, and offer procedural or substantive
recommendations with the agreement of both parties. Their primary tool
is the power of persuasion. Their effectiveness derives from their
status as respected neutrals, their acceptability to the parties, their
broad knowledge and experience in the process of collective bargaining,
and, especially, the quality of their ideas, suggestions and
perspectives.

**[B. FY 2003 Cases of Significance]{.underline}**:

**[1. Pacific Maritime Association//International Longshore and
Warehouse Union, AFL-CIO]{.underline}**

Fiscal year 2003 began with the West Coast ports dispute. The dispute
involved 10,500 longshoremen and clerks represented by the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union, and employed by various terminal
operators, stevedores, and shipping companies at 29 ports stretching
from Seattle to San Diego. Collectively, the companies constitute a
multi-employer association known as the Pacific Maritime Association
(PMA). The challenging issue for these negotiations was technological
advancement and the corollary effect on job security for union members.
The public became aware of the dispute shortly after the July 2002
contract expiration, when it became increasingly apparent that the flow
of goods could be halted. Over the next five months, the U.S. and the
world economy were disrupted by the dispute, which included a 10-day
closure of the West Coast Ports. Viewing the closure of the ports as a
threat to the health and safety of the nation, the President of the
United States elected to invoke the Taft Hartley Act for the first time
in 24 years.

The 29 West Coast ports collectively handle nearly half of the container
cargo entering or leaving the United States, with goods valued at more
than \$300 billion a year. It is the entry point for electronics,
automobiles, auto parts, apparel, and toys from Asia. The timing of the
dispute, arising in July 2002 and continuing through October, impaired
the ability of the U.S. economy to recover from the recession, as these
months are crucial for the nation's retailers to prepare for the
Christmas season.

The members of the PMA, a multi-employer association representing
terminal operators, stevedore, and shipping companies, conduct business
in a highly competitive environment. Success in this industry is
measured by the ability to rapidly and economically move cargo on and
off vessels. As dock space became increasingly limited, the efficient
movement of cargo required implementation of technology to facilitate
the processing of cargo.

Prior to 2002, implementation of technology had been uneven and unequal
throughout the 29 ports. To address these challenges, the PMA proposed
technological changes that would significantly alter the nature of the
waterfront work, allowing them to operate efficiently, and compete
globally. The union perceived these changes as a threat to job security.
Accordingly, the union's response to management's bargaining demands
included work preservation, wage increases for its current members, and
improvements to pension plans.

**[July 1, 2002 -- Contract Expiration and Weekly
Extensions]{.underline}**

**[Through September:]{.underline}**

The parties commenced negotiations close to three months before contract
expiration, with no settlement of the primary issues. On July 1, 2002,
the contract covering the docks' 10,500 employees expired. The parties
agreed to weekly contract extensions until early September, when the PMA
alleged that the union was staging a slowdown and paralyzing operations.

FMCS mediators were in constant contact with the parties from the time
negotiations began. When it was clear that a crisis could not be
averted, the parties agreed to the active participation of our
mediators. In October 2002, Secretary Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Richard
Trumka, joined the negotiations.

**[September 29 to October 9, 2002 - The Lockout and Mediation
Attempts:]{.underline}**

On September 29, 2002, the PMA locked out 10,500 employees alleging that
they had engaged in a slowdown to pressure the employers in the
negotiations. The union denied that it staged a slow down and instead
argued that its members were adhering to contractually and federally
mandated safety rules. The lockout resulted in significant cargo backups
and delayed shipments, resulting in higher costs for thousands of
retailers and manufacturers. Over 220 ships were essentially "parked" in
the Pacific Ocean awaiting unloading, while exporters were forced to
ship their goods with expensive air freight and others lost orders from
the United States because earlier shipments were held in port terminals.
Some shipping companies ceased sending vessels to the West Coast because
of container shortages. Director Peter J. Hurtgen arrived on the West
coast shortly before the lockout began. He and his representatives,
including the Deputy Director and the local mediator, engaged in
round-the-clock mediation efforts to resolve the dispute.

On October 6, 2002, the Director concluded negotiations close to
midnight. The parties were unable to reach agreement or to extend the
existing contract.

**[October 7, 2002 -- Invocation of Taft Hartley Board of Inquiry
Provisions:]{.underline}**

On October 7, 2002, the President of the United States invoked the Taft
Hartley Act to commence the process of reopening the ports and ending
the lockout.

\` Section 206 of the Taft Hartley amendment to the National Labor
Relations Act allows the President of the United States to appoint a
Board of Inquiry if a strike or lockout affects an entire industry, or a
substantial part thereof, which may "imperil the national health or
safety." Upon receipt of the Board of Inquiry's written report of the
factual elements of the dispute, Section 208 allows the President to
petition a district court to enjoin any strike or lockout that, if
permitted to continue, "imperils national health or safety." On October
7, 2002, the President signed an Executive Order creating a Board of
Inquiry under Section 206 of the statute. The Board consisted of former
Tennessee Senator Bill Brock, and Professors Patrick Hardin and Dennis
Nolan. The Board of Inquiry immediately commenced a closed-door fact
finding mission, inquiring into the issues involved in the dispute and
ascertaining the causes and circumstances thereof. On October 8, 2002,
the Board of Inquiry fulfilled its statutory mission and submitted a
written report to the President. The Act does not allow the report of
the Board to contain recommendations.

**[October 10, 2002 -- Invocation of Taft Hartley "National Emergency"
Injunction:]{.underline}**

On October 10, 2002, after submission of the Board of Inquiry report,
the President, through the Attorney General, sought a temporary
restraining order under Section 209 of the statute enjoining both
parties from engaging in any job action that would interfere with the
continuation of dock work, including a management-led lockout or a
union-supported slow down. The President cited economic damage from the
lockout and the war on terrorism as a threat to the nation's health and
safety. Although the parties agreed to continue processing military
cargo during the lockout, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a sworn
statement, asserted that a prolonged port closure could \"degrade
military readiness, hinder the department\'s ability to prosecute the
global war on terrorism, and undercut other defense needs and world-wide
commitments.\" On October 10, 2002, United States District Court Judge
Alsup issued a temporary restraining order reopening the ports and
sending employees back to work. The judge scheduled a hearing for
October 16, 2002, to determine whether a permanent injunction mandated
the statutory 80 day cooling off period.

**[October 10 -- October 16, 2002 - The Ports Re-Open:]{.underline}**

Under court order, employees returned to work and commenced the task of
processing cargo, while the Director and his representatives continued
their attempts to mediate an acceptable solution to the dispute.

Employees continued to work under court order, but with an understanding
from the judge that if the union encouraged or participated in a slow
down, the union could be held in contempt and ultimately face potential
fines. The PMA continued to claim that employees engaged in a slowdown
and forwarded productivity data to the Justice Department supporting its
claim. The union asserted that productivity and cargo movement was slow
because of the significant backlog of work, and blamed the PMA for the
lockout that caused the backlog. The union maintained its position that
it was complying with federally mandated safety requirements when
performing assignments and that it was not engaged in a slow down.

**[October 16, 2002: Judge Orders Permanent Injunction]{.underline}**

**[and 80 Day Cooling Off Period]{.underline}**:

On October 16, 2002, Judge Alsup issued a permanent injunction that kept
the ports open for the full 80 day cooling off period while the union
and the PMA continued negotiations with the Director and his
representatives.

**[NLRB Prepares for "Final-Offer" Election During]{.underline}**

**[Cooling Off Period While Director Mediates]{.underline}**:

While the Director continued mediating the dispute under a tight
timeline, the National Labor Relations Board prepared for a "final
offer" election under Section 209(b) of the statute. The statute
requires that, upon the issuance of a court order enjoining a work
stoppage, the parties have 60 days in which to resolve the dispute. At
the conclusion of the 60 day period, the parties' positions are to be
reported to the President of the United States by the Board of Inquiry,
along with efforts made to settle the case, statements by all of the
parties, and a statement of the employer's last offer. Within 15 days
thereafter, the NLRB is statutorily mandated to hold a secret ballot
election on whether employees wish to accept the final offer. Due to the
strict timelines involved, the parties continued the mediation process
with the Director while the NLRB prepared its Regional offices up and
down the coast to hold a last offer election.

**[November 4, 2002 - Tentative Agreement Reached on Technology
Issues:]{.underline}**

After 3 weeks of ongoing negotiations, tentative agreement was reached
covering the technological issues. The agreement in essence allowed the
PMA to implement technological changes, but with notice requirements to
the union and arbitration procedures to resolve disputes consistently
throughout the ports. Any technological change, after notice to the
union, may be submitted to a joint labor-management technology committee
for their recommendation. In the absence of agreement by the committee,
either party can file for arbitration, first through an area (or local)
arbitrator, but with appeal rights to a "coast" arbitrator. Review by a
coast arbitrator satisfied one important objective: ensuring consistent,
uniform, and efficient technological changes industry-wide and an end to
the practice of unequal and uneven implementation of technology.
Although the union secured the return of previously transferred rail and
yard planners, the introduction of new technology, in the short term,
would cost the union 400 positions through retirement and transfers to
other duties. Despite resolution of this significant issue, other issues
remained, including pension benefits, and wages.

**[November 5 -- November 12, 2002 - Director Calls a One Week
Recess:]{.underline}**

The parties continued negotiations on the outstanding issues, but, under
advisement from the Director, recessed negotiations for one week. Under
instructions from the Director, PMA used the recess to collect data
calculating the potential savings from the technological changes and
evaluating the savings against the cost of enhancing pension benefits,
health care coverage, and wages for remaining employees.

**[November 24, 2002: Parties Reach Final Agreement:]{.underline}**

Following close to two weeks of continuous negotiations mediated by the
Director and his representatives, and a mere three weeks prior to the
expiration of the cooling off period, the parties reached full
agreement. The six-year agreement guarantees stability on the ports for
a significant period. The contract guarantees job security for all
existing clerks, increases in pay and benefits, continuation of full
medical coverage, and pension increases. The contract was ratified by
the largest margin in the union's history, the injunction was
discharged, and the "final offer" election was canceled, so ending the
most costly labor dispute in 25 years.

**[2. Verizon/International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
and Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO]{.underline}**

Verizon is the nation's largest telephone company, employing
approximately 78,000 technicians and telephone operators represented by
the IBEW and CWA in 13 states stretching from Virginia to Maine.
Collective bargaining agreements with both unions expired in August
2003, and the membership authorized a strike upon contract expiration.
An 18-day strike in 2000 led to a backlog of 250,000 repairs and new
phone orders that took months to process. A strike in this case would
primarily affect installation of new phone lines, repairs, and ability
to reach directory-assistance operators. Seeking to avoid another
strike, the Director called all parties to Washington to commence
mediation directly with him.

The parties in this case wrangled over issues plaguing collective
bargaining negotiations in the last few years: the rising cost of health
insurance, and how to balance job security with the company\'s need to
respond to a tough economy and fierce competition. Regarding health
insurance costs, citing a 12% increase in health insurance costs,
Verizon proposed that its employees contribute more toward their health
coverage when they previously contributed about 5 percent of the cost.
Simultaneously, Verizon sought greater flexibility to reduce and
relocate its workforce. The expired contract allowed for no more than a
0.7% annual workforce transfer unless faced with pressures from "an
external event." The company now demanded an increase to 8%. This demand
came on the heels of an arbitrator's award, issued a few weeks prior to
contract expiration, ordering Verizon to reinstate and make whole 2300
laid off workers because the company violated the job security
provisions when it laid them off. The arbitrator rejected the company's
argument that new technology, increased competition and changing
government policy was equivalent to "external factors" permitting the
layoffs. Verizon continued to demand the right to lay off employees in
shrinking business areas, such as traditional land-line telephone
business, and expand it in faster growing areas where the company faces
stiff competition, such as wireless and high-speed Internet access
businesses.

The unions resisted changes in the health insurance costs partially
because the company posted profits in the second quarter, immediately
prior to contract negotiations. As for job security, the unions wanted
to maintain the expired contract language regarding job transfers, and
sought an assurance that employees who lose their jobs in one area can
obtain reassignment to another part of the company.

Amidst these positions, bargaining commenced with the Director and
Northeast regional management about 5 days prior to contract expiration.
Talks continued in Washington, while local bargaining committees met in
other parts of the Northeast. Negotiations continued for 10 consecutive
days, including weekends and late night sessions. After a 2 week hiatus,
the parties returned to the bargaining table with the Director and
reached agreement on September 4, 2003. Verizon's vice president praised
the Director's "insightful approach" and the Unions similarly saluted
the Director's "dedicated efforts, experience and professionalism" in
helping the parties resolve the contentious issues.

**[3. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems / Pascagoula Metal Trades
Department, IBEW, IAM, and OPEIU]{.underline}**

Northrop Grumman is a \$15 billion, global aerospace and defense
company, providing products and services in defense and commercial
electronics, systems integration, information technology and non-nuclear
shipbuilding. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS) is a division of
Northrop Grumman, headquartered in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The group
includes the Ingalls Operations and the Ship Systems Full Service
Center, located in Pascagoula, and the Avondale Operations, located in
New Orleans, Louisiana, Tallulah, Louisiana, and Gulfport, Mississippi.
NGSS employs more than 17,000 shipbuilding professionals and is one of
the nation\'s leading companies for the design, engineering,
construction, and support of major surface ships for the U.S. Navy, U.S.
Coast Guard, international navies, and commercial vessels of all types.
Of these 17,000 employees, 10,000 are represented by 13 different labor
unions (9 Metal Trade Unions, and locals of the IBEW, OPEIU, and IAM).
Contracts in these units expired in late February 2003.

In November 2002, the parties commenced negotiations with the assistance
of a mediator. The parties met daily in mid-February 2003 in order to
reach agreement prior to contract expiration.

Throughout the 78 meetings held with the parties, complicated issues
pervaded the negotiations, the most significant of which included health
care premiums, drug costs and plan designs, wages, holidays, contract
language, and contract duration. On February 24, 2003, tentative
agreements were reached with the Metal Trades Council (9 of the unions
involved), and, soon thereafter, agreements were reached with the
remaining unions.

Ratification votes failed in every unit, and all unions had strike-vote
authorization. FMCS immediately invoked a 14-day cooling off period and
asked all parties to return to negotiations to avoid a highly disruptive
work stoppage, that had the potential to affect the economies in three
states and impact on the impending war in Iraq.

With FMCS intervention and intense negotiations, all 13 unions reached 4
year agreements with NGSS and the contracts were ratified. The parties
agreed to some of the most progressive and innovative agreements in the
shipbuilding industry. They will form a joint labor-management committee
to develop and implement a variable pay/gain sharing plan, and have
formed a joint task force to address health care issues in order to
avoid similar problems during successor contract negotiations.

**[4. Regional Transportation District (RTD)/Amalgamated Transit
Union]{.underline}**

# Regional Transportation District (RTD) provides bus and light rail service for the Denver metropolitan area. Approximately 250,000 riders utilize the service on a daily basis. For many riders, it is the only means of public transportation. A strike, involving 2000 unionized employees, would have significant impact on Denver and surrounding communities.

# 

# The contract expired in December 2002, and a strike was threatened months earlier. Bargaining commenced in November 2002 and the FMCS became active in the dispute in January 2003. Colorado's designated state mediator participated as well.

Mediation commenced with over 100 open issues, but these were quickly
narrowed to 20 in three negotiation sessions. Both sides prepared for a
strike despite this progress. The Employer's final offer was rejected in
March 2003, and the contract was extended for another month. The media
soon gained an interest in the dispute, as the strike issues narrowed to
wages, overtime pay, health insurance, management rights, and workplace
policies.

Hours before contract expiration, while employees readied for picketing,
an agreement was reached resolving all outstanding issues. The morning
news programs announced the successful resolution of the dispute.

**[5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics/International Association of Aerospace
and Machinists, Local 776]{.underline}**

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactures F-16 fighter jets in Fort
Worth, Texas. The company employs 14,000 workers, of which 4000 are
represented by the IAM. Historically, the parties' relationship grows
increasingly adversarial during contract negotiations. The local
mediator contacted the parties two weeks prior to contract negotiations,
but the parties resisted mediation efforts at that time.

FMCS mediators became actively involved in the dispute about a week
prior to contract expiration. The principle issues centered on the
company's compressed work proposal and a new health care plan. The union
resisted a compressed work schedule, was opposed to a new health care
plan, and proposed increases to wages and pension plan benefits.
Negotiations proceeded for five consecutive days under FMCS auspices
when the company delivered its final offer. The Union presented the
offer to its membership without a recommendation. The membership
rejected the offer and voted to strike.

The strike attracted media attention, and continued for one week, when
the mediator invited the parties to return to the table. Thirteen days
into the strike, the parties returned to negotiations with the mediator
and tentative agreement was reached on the 14^th^ day of the strike.

6\. Minnesota Hospitals Association/SEIU

The Minnesota Hospitals Association (MHA) is a multiemployer association
consisting of fourteen hospitals and large clinics in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. All of the hospitals are
represented by Service Employees International Union, Local 113, who
represents more than 6000 service and maintenance workers at the
fourteen MHA facilities.

The collective bargaining agreements covering all the SEIU units were
scheduled to expire in late February 2003. Despite multiple negotiation
sessions, little progress had been made, and in early February, MHA
requested the assistance of the mediator. The Union opposed mediation at
the time but assured the mediator, and MHA, that it would assent to
mediation prior to any work stoppage. In mid-February, following the
filing of appropriate notices with FMCS and the affected MHA
institutions, the Union commenced informational picketing at selected
MHA institutions, amidst widespread media coverage.

Throughout February, the assigned mediator and Regional leadership of
FMCS monitored the progress of negotiations. When the contract expired,
the Union consented to mediation. Negotiations were extremely complex,
they were attended by over one hundred participants, and the parties
remained far apart. More than fifty issues remained open and little
progress was made. The Union continued to demand their economic package,
and other issues including contract duration and a neutrality agreement
in future organizing campaigns. Negotiations stalled in March, with no
future mediation sessions formally scheduled, yet the mediator
maintained daily contact with both sides. After some time, the mediator
asked the parties to return to the table and the mediator continued
efforts to move the parties toward agreement. The Employer presented the
Union with a final offer. Shortly after receipt of the final offer, the
Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB and
simultaneously filed one day strike notices on selected MHA
institutions. They did not submit the offer for a vote by the
membership. The media showed interest in the dispute particularly when
the strike notices continued and the first of the one-day strikes
occurred in the middle of April.

Despite the mediator's attempt to generate movement by the parties, both
sides remained firm. Concerned that no additional meetings were formally
scheduled, the mediator persuaded the principal spokespersons to attend
a meeting at the FMCS offices in Minneapolis. During this meeting, it
became clear that there was a miscommunication between the parties
regarding the final offer: the Union believed that the entire final
offer "expired" on April 6, while the Employer contended that only
certain parts of the offer expired on that date. The Employer requested
that the final offer be submitted to the membership for a vote, while
the Union indicated a desire to expand the rolling strikes' duration
from one to multiple days. Convinced that the dispute was in danger of
escalating and concerned about the parties' ability to bring closure to
the negotiations without significant economic and community disruption,
the mediator explored different package options with the parties. The
mediator persuaded the parties to meet face-to-face as a means to halt
the escalation of the conflict.

When the parties met again with the mediator, the mediator suggested a
"package" option to resolve the principal issues separating the parties,
including wages, health insurance, pension and a neutrality agreement.
At the conclusion of a long mediation session, a new package was
outlined and the Union agreed to submit it to its membership. The
contract was ratified, averting a work stoppage that would have affected
not only the employees, but access to health care for the residents of
the Twin Cities.

7\. Waukesha Engine/IAM:

Waukesha Engine produces diesel engines and employs 800 workers, of
which 500 are represented by the Union. The highly skilled, unionized
workforce is responsible for maintenance, welding and assembly of
complex engines. The Union has represented these employees for over 50
years and, in the past, had a positive working relationship with the
company.

Waukesha Engine has been a profitable operation for many years, and as a
result, employees have generally enjoyed superior wages and benefits.
However, when negotiations commenced in January 2003, the company, while
acknowledging profits, proposed \$5 million dollars in "cost-saving"
measures, including changes to the health insurance programs, layoffs
out of seniority, and elimination of paid lunches for all employees. The
company maintained that any contractual increases must be offset by
corresponding "cost-savings" reductions.

Although the parties resolved some issues without mediation, significant
contract language issues and economics were unresolved when FMCS was
asked to join the negotiations. The company maintained its demand for
\$5 million dollars in cost savings, while the Union searched for these
savings in areas that would be acceptable to the membership. In May
2003, the Union submitted the company's "final offer" to membership for
a vote. The offer was rejected and the membership voted to strike. The
strike began the afternoon of the vote and the company immediately hired
200 temporary replacements.

Almost 45 days into the strike, and after several mediated sessions, the
membership rejected an 'amended' proposal. The company was prepared to
declare impasse and implement its final offer. The mediator asked the
parties to return to the table and worked with the parties to fashion an
acceptable resolution. A contract and strike settlement was reached, 55
days into the strike.

In addition to the economic harm of the strike, there has been a
significant deterioration of the good-will that existed between the
parties prior to this labor dispute. The parties' historic
labor-management partnership is now a memory, and many cooperative
efforts have been abandoned. With the contract now ratified, we will
extend our efforts to help the parties re-establish a good working
relationship.

**[8. Williams Controls/UAW]{.underline}**

The employees of Williams Control have been on strike since September
2002. Since that date, the mediator has been actively involved in
negotiating a settlement of the contract terms and a strike settlement.
The most significant issue involved health insurance for retirees, and
ultimately the right of the economic strikers to return to work. During
the strike, the Union filed unfair labor practices with the NLRB, but
during the course of the NLRB's investigation, it became evident that
the statutory strike notice was not timely filed with the FMCS thereby
affecting the statutory protection of the strikers and their
reinstatement rights. In August 2003, almost a year after the strike
began, the parties entered into a 5-year contract, allowing retirees to
maintain their health insurance, and allowing the strikers to return to
work within a four month period.

**[9. Southwest Washington Health District and Clark County Health
Department/LIUNA]{.underline}**

Southwest Washington Health District employed 120 employees represented
by LIUNA. These employees were scheduled to transfer to Clark County
Health Department by January 2003. In September 2002, the FMCS was asked
to mediate an interagency transfer agreement that eased the transition
from Southwest Washington Health District to the Clark County Health
Department. Using interest-based bargaining techniques, the mediator
facilitated a transfer agreement by January 1, 2003.

Once the transfer was complete, the FMCS was asked to mediate the first
collective bargaining agreement between LIUNA and the Clark County
Health Department. Using interest-based bargaining techniques, and an
existing contract from an OPEIU bargaining unit in Clark County, the
parties negotiated each provision of their new collective bargaining
agreement. The process was complex and time consuming: they reviewed
each provision of the OPEIU contract, determined its practical
applications, compared each provision against LIUNA's previous agreement
with Southwest Washington Health District, and determined which sections
of the OPEIU and LIUNA contracts were acceptable to both parties. The
parties were forced to deal with difficult issues, including seniority
credit and its relation to the transfer, new wage schedules, and
reclassification of certain positions due to the transfer. The mediator
looked for consensus on each provision and ultimately the parties
executed a two year agreement.

**[10. San Francisco Ballet / International Association of
Musicians]{.underline}**

The San Francisco Ballet company employs approximately 67 musicians. The
state of the economy and the decline in tourism have negatively affected
endowment income, ticket sales and contributions to ballet.

While the contract between the American Federation of Musicians Local 6
and the Ballet company expired in December 2002, the parties desired
early intervention because of their previous positive working
relationship with the FMCS and local mediators. Months before contract
expiration, the parties asked to use interest-based bargaining
techniques, using FMCS's Technology Assisted Group Solutions (TAGS)
computer-based program. With the help of two mediators utilizing our
TAGS system, the parties resolved 18 of 27 non-economic issues in 3
days. Encouraged by this success, the parties agreed to address their
outstanding economic issues. Generally, interest-based bargaining is a
difficult technique to use when resolving economic issues. Nonetheless,
the parties were able to complete the economic portion of negotiations
in 2 days, also using interest-based bargaining techniques. As a result
of the cooperative efforts of parties, the local mediator has been asked
to address a national convention of ballet directors regarding FMCS's
dispute resolution services.

C. Collective Bargaining Mediation Data

  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Intake                                                            

  Fiscal Years 1999 Through     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003
  2003                                                              

  Union and Employer Notices    36,854   34,038   33,344   40,677   33,046
  [^6]                                                              

  NLRB and FLRA                 1,631    1,492    1,446    1,389    1,485
  Certifications[^7]                                                

  Public Sector Board           198      191      152      173      173
  Requests[^8]                                                      

  Union and Employer            1,903    2,521    2,704    3,100    3.140
  Requests[^9]                                                      

  Total                         40,586   38,242   37,646   45,339   37,844

                                                                    
  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Case Numbers Issued                                               

  Fiscal Years 1999 Through     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003
  2003[^10]                                                         

                                25,676   26,323   25,071   25,282   26,774
  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Case Numbers Assigned                                             

  Fiscal Years 1999 Through     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003
  2003[^11]                                                         

                                19,200   19,574   19,116   19,303   19,516
  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Cases Closed Fiscal Years   | 1999  | 2000  | 2001  | 2002  | 2003  |
| 1999                        |       |       |       |       |       |
|                             |       |       |       |       |       |
| Through 2003 [^12]^3^       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| By consolidation after      | 685   | 1,125 | 619   | 727   | 728   |
| assignment [^13]^4^         |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| By Final Report with        | 6,188 | 6,321 | 6,424 | 6,757 | 6,640 |
| meetings [^14]^5^           |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| By Final Report with no     | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     |
| meetings [^15]^6^           | 2,422 | 3,291 | 2,107 | 0,861 | 1,938 |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total                       | 1     | 2     | 1     | 1     | 1     |
|                             | 9,295 | 0,737 | 9,150 | 8,345 | 9,306 |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                             |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Dispute Meeting Conferences                                       

  Fiscal Years 1999 Through     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003
  2003 [^16]^7^                                                     

                                19,329   17,837   17,933   17,920   17,702

                                                                    
  ----------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

  ------------------------------- ------- -- ------ -- ------ -- ------ -- -------
  Work Stoppage Information                                                

  Fiscal Years 1999 Through       1999       2000      2001      2002      2003
  2003[^17]^8^                                                             

                                                                           

  Work stoppages beginning in the                                          

  fiscal year                     362        400       432       308       277

                                                                           

  Work stoppages in closed cases                                           

  in the fiscal year              411        392       445       327       289

                                                                           

  Average duration of work                                                 
  stoppages                                                                

  in closed cases (number of      50.5       390       40.7      53.7      60.5
  days)                                                                    

                                                                           
  ------------------------------- ------- -- ------ -- ------ -- ------ -- -------

  ------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Contract Mediation Analysis By                                      
  Sector                                                              

  Fiscal Years 1999 Through 2003  1999     2000     2001     2002     2003

                                                                      

  INTAKE                          40,586   38,242   37,646   45,339   37,844

                                                                      

  CASE NUMBERS ISSUED                                                 

  Private Sector                  23,856   24,386   23,135   23,170   24,775

  Public Sector                   1,141    1,216    1,185    1,362    1,366

  Federal Sector                  678      720      750      749      632

                                                                      

  ASSIGNED                                                            

  Private Sector                  17,444   17,681   17,241   17,266   17,568

  Public Sector                   1,089    1,168    1,139    1,296    1,329

  Federal Sector                  666      725      739      741      623

                                                                      

  CLOSED CASES [^18]^9^                                               

  Private Sector                  17,394   18,786   17,219   16,331   17,302

  Public Sector                   1,199    1,209    1,150    1,297    1,341

  Federal Sector                  701      742      781      717      663

                                                                      
  ------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

**[III. INITIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS:]{.underline}**

**[A. Initial Contract Negotiations and Processes]{.underline}**:

Initial contract negotiations are critical because they are the
foundation for the parties' future labor-management relationship.
Initial contract negotiations are often more difficult than established
successor contract negotiations, since they frequently follow
contentious representation election campaigns.

Negotiations can be further complicated by one or both parties'
inexperience in collective bargaining and labor-management relations.
For the last several years, FMCS has placed special emphasis on
mediation of initial contract negotiations between employers and newly
certified or recognized bargaining units. It is our policy that all
initial contract cases are promptly assigned for mediation, and that
mediators make every effort to become actively involved in assisting the
parties in achieving agreements. Since 1996, FMCS maintained a rule
requiring all initial contract cases remain open for two years pending
an agreement between the parties, or the closing of the case for other
reasons.

For more than a decade, the NLRB regional offices have provided paper
copies of certifications to the FMCS. Because the process varied in
different parts of the country, the FMCS did not receive the
certification within a reasonable period of time after issuance,
severely hampering our ability to assist the parties. To streamline this
process, and ensure our prompt receipt of certifications after their
issuance, FMCS's National Office receives, via e-mail from the NLRB's
headquarters, a spreadsheet of all certifications issued within the
month. This data includes not only the company and union involved, but
also includes a full and complete description of the certified unit,
number of employees in the unit, date of certification, and addresses,
telephone, facsimile and e-mail addresses of the parties involved. This
system is more efficient, ensures that we receive the certifications no
more than one month after issuance, and allows for our intervention as
soon as possible.

**[B. Initial Contract Bargaining Data]{.underline}**

+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Initial Contract Bargaining    | FY   | F    | F    | FY02  | FY03 |
|                                | 99   | Y'00 | Y'01 |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Private Sector initial         | 1    | 1715 | 1    | 1,486 | 1    |
| contract cases received:       | ,715 |      | ,745 |       | ,578 |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Assigned to mediators:         | 1    | 1    | 1    | 1,458 | 1    |
|                                | ,657 | ,677 | ,702 |       | ,506 |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Assigned from NLRB             | 1    | 1    | 1    | 1,185 | 1    |
| certifications:                | ,397 | ,296 | ,282 |       | ,266 |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Assigned from other sources:   | 260  | 381  | 420  | 273   | 240  |
|                                |      |      |      |       |      |
| (e.g. voluntary recognition)   |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Cases closed by FMCS:          | 661  | 867  | 1    | 1,361 | 1    |
|                                |      |      | ,892 |       | ,473 |
| (Mediated and non-mediated)    |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Mediated cases closed with     | 137  | 231  | 360  | 243   | 190  |
| agreement reached:             |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Percentage of mediated cases   | 47.9 | 52.9 | 55.1 | 50.3  | 47.7 |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Mediated cases closed without  | 149  | 206  | 293  | 240   | 208  |
| agreement reached:             |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Percentage of mediated         | 52.1 | 47.1 | 44.9 | 49.7  | 52.3 |
| cases[^19]^0^                  |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Non-mediated cases closed with | 249  | 255  | 676  | 538   | 642  |
| agreement reached:             |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Percentage of non-mediated     | 66.4 | 59.3 | 54.6 | 61.3  | 59.7 |
| cases:                         |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Non-mediated cases closed      | 126  | 175  | 561  | 339   | 433  |
| without agreement reached:     |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Percentage of non-mediated     | 33.6 | 40.7 | 45.3 | 38.7  | 40.3 |
| cases[^20]^1^                  |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Percentage of mediated and     | 58.3 | 56.0 | 54.8 | 57.4  | 56.5 |
| non-mediated cases             |      |      |      |       |      |
|                                |      |      |      |       |      |
| Closed with agreement reached: |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Closed cases involving         | 75   | 128  | 263  | 221   | 193  |
| ULP[^21]^2^ filed by either    |      |      |      |       |      |
| party:                         |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Closed cases involving work    | 19   | 24   | 43   | 29    | 20   |
| stoppages:                     |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Closed cases involving work    | 10   | 14   | 21   | 20    | 10   |
| stoppages with                 |      |      |      |       |      |
|                                |      |      |      |       |      |
| Agreement reached:             |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Average number of days between | 166  | 176  | 85   | 75    | 72   |
| statutory notice receipt and   |      |      |      |       |      |
| closure:[^22]^3^               |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Average number of days for     | 351  | 363  | 432  | 396   | 318  |
| cases carried over             |      |      |      |       |      |
|                                |      |      |      |       |      |
| And closed in next fiscal      |      |      |      |       |      |
| year:                          |      |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+
| Assigned cases carried over to | 1    | 813  | 792  | 784   | 881  |
| next year:                     | ,001 |      |      |       |      |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+-------+------+

**[IV. RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM:]{.underline}**

In today\'s changing workplace and economic environment, businesses and
unions recognize that the quality of the labor‑management relationship
is an important factor in an organization\'s ability to compete. As a
result, the role of federal mediators has evolved beyond traditional
crisis intervention during the last few days of collective bargaining
negotiations. More frequently, mediators are involved during the life of
a contract to address workplace issues between the parties, and they
train both sides in effective bargaining, communications, joint problem
solving and innovative conflict resolution methods. Increasingly, FMCS
offers a broader range of services to respond to changing customer
requirements. These \"preventive mediation\" (PM) services are
collaborative union‑management processes and are as important as our
dispute mediation services.

**[B. FY 2002 Preventative Mediation Cases of
Significance:]{.underline}**

**[1. Longmont Foods d/b/a ConAgra/UFCW Local 990 and]{.underline}**

**[IOUE Local 1]{.underline}**

ConAgra is a turkey processing plant, employing a culturally diverse
workforce. Half of its workforce, about 400 employees, are represented
by either UFCW or IOUE. In late 2002, we worked with the parties to
develop a labor-management committee. We facilitated committee meetings
into December 2002, and assisted the parties in resolving workplace
problems. Since the inception of the committee, the parties developed
on-site foreign language classes, high school degree equivalency (GED)
classes, arranged for assistance to employees with immigration issues,
and developed a scholarship program for employees' children. The
labor-management committee now works effectively on its own, with
occasional site visits by the mediator.

2\. Environmental Protection Agency/AFGE

The labor-management relationship at the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) offices in Chicago was historically volatile.
There were a large number of unresolved grievances and the parties
functioned on an adversarial basis. When a new Regional Director was
appointed in the Chicago office, he demonstrated commitment to the
mediation process by sending EPA labor relations specialists to the FMCS
Institute for a course in mediation skills. The course was well
received, as evidenced by the EPA's request to replicate it in the
Chicago office. In the fall of 2003, four mediators conducted a 5-day
mediation skills training class. In order to remain responsive to the
needs of the class, adjustments were made to the program agenda and
content during the one week training program. The participants were
anxious to apply their newly learned skills at the worksite. A follow-up
facilitation session with the training participants, conducted several
months later, showed that the participants utilized the skills learned
during the training. The EPA reported an increase in the
grievance-settlement rate and improved communication between the
parties. The EPA continues to work with FMCS on additional training for
other managers and union officials.

[**3. Southeast Navy Regional Navy Command / American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE), International Association of Firefighters
(IAFF), and the National Association of Government Employees
(NAGE)**]{.underline}

The Navy's Southeast region is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.
It includes 17 commands and several thousand employees. The Southeast
Navy Regional Command established a labor-management consortium, and, in
August 2003, the FMCS was asked to train new members of the
labor-management consortium, using interest-based, problem-solving
techniques. After training, we facilitated discussions concerning
housing, security and safety among 40 members of the labor-management
consortium. Using subcommittees, and interest-based, problem-solving
processes, the consortium resolved many complex issues through consensus
and cooperation. The parties learned that occasional disagreement does
not preclude cooperative efforts in other areas.

**[4. Perkins School District]{.underline}**

The Perkins School District elementary school teachers and
administrators asked for assistance in improving their overall working
conditions. The parties complained of a growing distrust and lack of
effective communication between teachers and administrators. We met with
representatives of various factions within the district to fully assess
their situation. We delivered a two-day training program for all
teachers and administrators within the school, other district
administrators, and all Board of Education members, focusing on advanced
communication skills and development of a common vision for the school.
Participants identified the issues dividing them and developed an action
plan to rectify the situation. The parties created a labor-management
committee to implement their objectives. The labor-management committee
was trained by an FMCS mediator, who currently facilitates the
committee's meetings, and all parties are optimistic that working
conditions will soon improve.

**C. Relationship Development and Training Data**

  --------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
  Relationship Development and                                      
  Training Cases                                                    

  Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003
  [^23]^4^                                                          

  Assigned [^24]^5^                 2,891   2,782   2,629   2,610   2,574

  Closed by Final Report [^25]^6^   2,954   2,792   2,655   2,618   2,594

                                                                    
  --------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

  --------------------------------- ------- -- ------- ------ ------- ------ -- ------- -------
  Outreach Cases                                                                        

  Fiscal Years 1999 Through 2003    1999       2000           2001              2002    2003
  [^26]^7^                                                                              

  Assigned                          5,518      5,504          5,436             5,800   5,392

  Closed by Final Report            5,626      5,621          5,645             5,881   5,484

                                                                                        
  --------------------------------- ------- -- ------- ------ ------- ------ -- ------- -------

**V. ARBITRATION SERVICES:**

**[A. Arbitration Services:]{.underline}**

In collective bargaining, voluntary arbitration is the preferred method
of settling disputes over contract interpretation or application. Since
its creation, FMCS provided access to voluntary arbitration services.
Rather than using full-time government employees, we maintain a roster
of the nation's most experienced private professional arbitrators who
have met rigid FMCS qualifications. Upon request, FMCS furnishes a panel
of qualified arbitrators from which the parties select a mutually
satisfactory individual to hear and render a final and binding decision
on the issue or issues in dispute. We retain a roster of over 1400
private arbitrators, knowledgeable practitioners with backgrounds in
collective bargaining and labor-management relations. FMCS charges a
nominal fee for the provision of arbitrator lists and panels, or other
major services.

The FMCS computerized retrieval system produces a random panel of
potential arbitrators from which the parties may select. Panels also can
be compiled on the basis of geographic location, professional
affiliation, occupation, experience with particular industries or
issues, or other criteria when specified by the parties. FMCS also
furnishes current biographical sketches of arbitrators for parties to
establish their own permanent panels.

> To join the FMCS Roster, arbitrators must be approved by an
> Arbitration Review Board, which meets quarterly to consider new
> applicants for appointment to the roster by the FMCS Director. There
> is also an arbitration user focus group, which reviews and makes
> recommendations to the FMCS Director on changes in Arbitration Service
> policies and procedures.

# **[B. FY 2003 Accomplishments:]{.underline}**

The following represents the accomplishments of the Office of
Arbitration Services during fiscal year 2003:

-   **[E-filing:]{.underline}** To encourage on-line filing for
    arbitration panels, the Office of Management and Budget approved our
    request to increase fees for non-electronic panel requests, while
    maintaining the \$30 on-line fee. The result has been an increase in
    on-line filing from 386 in fiscal year 2002 to 2140 in fiscal year
    2003.

-   **[Revision of Arbitration Policies]{.underline}**: Policies and
    Procedures have been revised by clarification of the criteria for
    admittance to the roster. The Arbitration Review Board has proposed,
    and the Director is now considering a policy that arbitrators who
    have not been active on the roster for a period of two years must
    reapply to the Arbitrator Review Board to gain re-admission.

-   **[Untimely Awards:]{.underline}** In the last two fiscal years, the
    Office of Arbitration services instituted timeliness requirements
    for awards. If two or more awards are overdue in non discharge
    cases, or there is one overdue award in a discharge case, the
    arbitrator is considered unavailable for selection until the awards
    are rendered. As a result, awards are more timely and the public has
    filed less complaints regarding untimely awards.

-   **[Revisions to the R-43:]{.underline}** Revision includes expansion
    of acceptable forms of electronic payment. Additionally, because the
    parties now have the opportunity to seek a panel of arbitrators from
    a particular metropolitan area, 25% of the parties have had
    substantial savings in travel expenditures.

-   **[Expansion of arbitrator biographies]{.underline}**: The
    arbitrators' biographies now include arbitrator's e mail addresses
    for ease of communication, collective bargaining and arbitration
    experience, individual fees and cancellation policies, and each
    arbitrator's time requirements to avoid a cancellation fee.

-   **[Arbitration Customer Focus Group:]{.underline}** A customer focus
    group was convened, consisting of arbitrators, and representatives
    of labor and management, to secure feedback on the selection
    process, timeliness of awards, geographical boundaries, and concerns
    about our computer system. Recommendations of the focus group will
    be reviewed and changes to our procedures will be considered.

-   **[FMCS Institute]{.underline}**: The Agency's Institute conducted
    two arbitrator training courses to increase the professionalism and
    expertise of new arbitrators.

**[C. Arbitration Services Program Data]{.underline}**

Number of Panel Requests, Panels Submitted and Arbitrator Appointments
Fiscal Years 1999 Through 2003

  ------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **Activity**                    **1999**   **2000**   **2001**   **2002**   **2003**

                                                                              

  Panel Requests                  17,514     16,976     16,594     17,282     17,332

  Panels Issued [^27]^8^          19,062     19,485     18,275     18,891     19,039

  Arbitrators Appointed           8,984      9,561      8,706      8,335      8,595

                                                                              
  ------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

  ------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **Activity Charged For**        **1999**   **2000**   **2001**   **2002**   **2003**

  Travel Days                     .41        .51        .43        .45        .48

  Hearing Days                    1.20       1.18       1.15       1.09       1.15

  Study Days                      2.38       2.58       2.40       2.44       2.35

  **Total**                       **4.02**   **4.27**   **3.98**   **3.98**   **3.98**
  ------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

  ------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  **Charges**                     **1999**       **2000**      **2001**      **2002**      **2003**

  Per Diem Rate                   641.49         672.12        693.12        720.75        763.87

  Amount of Fee                   2,592.00       2863.49       2761.04       2884.46       3047.54

  Amount of Expenses              248.92         321.67        341.92        318.03        364.32

  **Total Charged**               **2,840.92**   **3185.16**   **3102.96**   **3202.49**   **3411.86**
  ------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Total Number of Issues**    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
|                               | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** |
| ######## And Specific Issues  |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| ######## Total                | **2,  | **2,  | **1,  | **1,  | **2,  |
|                               | 132** | 723** | 902** | 989** | 314** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **General Issues**            | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    |
|                               | 391** | 585** | 434** | 463** | 506** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Overtime Other Than Pay[^28]  |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Distribution of Overtime      | 30    | 48    | 34    | 26    | 35    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Compulsory Overtime           | 8     | 12    | 8     | 12    | 9     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Other Overtime                | 15    | 18    | 10    | 10    | 12    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Seniority**                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Promotion & Upgrading         | 42    | 86    | 54    | 52    | 63    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Layoff Bumping & Recall       | 48    | 65    | 46    | 48    | 71    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Transfer                      | 13    | 16    | 17    | 21    | 14    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Other Seniority               | 33    | 38    | 25    | 25    | 35    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Union Officers[^29]^\*^       | 4     | 12    | 9     | 14    | 13    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Strike & Lockout              | 2     | 4     | 3     | 2     | 1     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Working Conditions[^30]^\*\*^ | 19    | 35    | 35    | 29    | 19    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Discrimination                | 21    | 27    | 19    | 24    | 17    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Management Rights             | 49    | 75    | 51    | 63    | 71    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Scheduling of Work            | 45    | 50    | 43    | 67    | 47    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Work Assignments              | 62    | 99    | 80    | 70    | 99    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Economic Wage Rates & Pay   | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    |
| Issues**                      | 239** | 298** | 227** | 229** | 233** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Wage Issues                   | 46    | 32    | 29    | 36    | 42    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Rate of Pay                   | 65    | 75    | 53    | 60    | 60    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Severance Pay                 | 6     | 5     | 6     | 8     | 5     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Reporting, Call‑ in &         | 10    | 12    | 13    | 7     | 10    |
| Call‑back Pay                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Holidays & Holiday Pay        | 15    | 33    | 31    | 26    | 21    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Vacations & Vacation Pay      | 31    | 54    | 29    | 39    | 27    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Incentive Rates & Standards   | 17    | 25    | 13    | 7     | 15    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Overtime Pay                  | 49    | 62    | 53    | 46    | 53    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Fringe Benefits Issues**    | *     | **    | *     | *     | **    |
|                               | *63** | 100** | *69** | *99** | 112** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Health & Welfare              | 27    | 58    | 29    | 58    | 61    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Pensions                      | 6     | 14    | 11    | 8     | 11    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Other Fringe Issues           | 30    | 28    | 29    | 33    | 40    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Discharge & Disciplinary    | **1   | **1   | **    | **    | **1   |
| Issues**                      | 004** | 203** | 849** | 947** | 091** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Technical Issues**          | **    | **    | *     | *     | *     |
|                               | 102** | 139** | *81** | *86** | *97** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Job Posting & Bidding         | 36    | 52    | 32    | 38    | 43    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Job Evaluation                | 24    | 28    | 18    | 11    | 21    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Job Classification            | 42    | 59    | 31    | 37    | 33    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Scope of Agreement**        | *     | *     | *     | *     | *     |
|                               | *61** | *74** | *45** | *65** | *53** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Subcontracting                | 40    | 48    | 29    | 41    | 36    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Jurisdictional Disputes       | 10    | 16    | 8     | 14    | 5     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Foreman, Supervision, etc.    | 7     | 5     | 5     | 8     | 9     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mergers, Consolidations,      | 4     | 5     | 3     | 2     | 3     |
| Accretion, Other Plants       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

  ------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Arbitrability of Grievances** **146**   **193**   **109**   **100**   **139**

  Procedural                      98        120       76        60        102

  Substantive                     35        42        14        23        25

  Procedural & Substantive        13        24        19        17        12

  Other Arbitrability Questions   0         7         0         0         0

  **Not Elsewhere Classified**    **126**   **131**   **88**    **115**   **83**
  ------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Total Number of Cases**     | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
|                               | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** |
| **State & Region**            |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Mountain**                  | **    | *     | **    | **    | **    |
|                               | 142** | *85** | 123** | 115** | 136** |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Arizona                       | 9     | 15    | 10    | 15    | 20    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Colorado                      | 47    | 28    | 40    | 30    | 47    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Idaho                         | 6     | 3     | 7     | 5     | 7     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Montana                       | 8     | 11    | 16    | 7     | 11    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Nevada                        | 30    | 12    | 13    | 31    | 23    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| New Mexico                    | 35    | 11    | 26    | 19    | 20    |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Utah                          | 5     | 4     | 5     | 5     | 6     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Wyoming                       | 2     | 1     | 6     | 3     | 2     |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                               |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

  ------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Pacific**                     **153**   **128**   **140**   **151**   **129**

  Alaska                          8         6         13        7         2

  California                      86        59        66        73        67

  Hawaii                          2         2         0         1         3

  Oregon                          17        32        28        31        12

  Washington                      40        29        33        39        45

                                                                          

  **Miscellaneous**               **9**     **16**    **9**     **13**    **15**

  Philippines                     0         0         0         0         0

  Puerto Rico                     2         4         1         2         7

  Virgin Islands                  4         4         4         10        6

  Guam                            0         0         0         0         0

  Others                          3         8         4         1         2

                                                                          

  **New England**                 **20**    **29**    **45**    **17**    **37**

  Connecticut                     5         10        13        0         4

  Maine                           2         2         2         2         4

  Massachusetts                   9         11        12        9         8

  New Hampshire                   2         0         2         1         0

  Rhode Island                    1         0         6         3         8

  Vermont                         1         6         10        2         13

                                                                          

  **Middle Atlantic**             **233**   **289**   **307**   **246**   **284**

  New Jersey                      31        22        30        26        35

  New York                        95        111       121       71        97

  Pennsylvania                    107       156       156       149       152

                                                                          

  **South Atlantic**              **285**   **349**   **385**   **375**   **457**

  Delaware                        4         6         12        3         2

  District of Columbia            53        31        36        35        50

  Florida                         55        92        112       125       124

  Georgia                         25        51        58        41        77

  Maryland                        48        35        29        49        48

  North Carolina                  7         21        29        29        37

  South Carolina                  8         15        14        14        21

  Virginia                        47        56        30        43        53

  West Virginia                   38        42        65        36        45

                                                                          

  **East North Central**          **673**   **866**   **715**   **950**   **796**

  Illinois                        207       191       145       216       199

  Indiana                         71        67        63        84        55

  Michigan                        187       190       194       158       171

  Ohio                            154       338       224       413       274

  Wisconsin                       54        80        89        79        97

                                                                          

  **West North Central**          **222**   **316**   **314**   **273**   **347**

  Iowa                            49        61        68        51        67

  Kansas                          27        32        38        28        39

  Minnesota                       40        90        84        82        71

  Missouri                        85        101       94        89        121

  Nebraska                        16        17        19        12        17

  North Dakota                    1         5         8         4         23

  South Dakota                    4         10        3         7         9
  ------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

  ------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **East South Central**          **118**     **236**    **239**    **221**    **224**

  Alabama                         23          53         57         51         49

  Kentucky                        35          70         81         66         71

  Mississippi                     9           17         32         20         24

  Tennessee                       51          96         69         84         80

                                                                               

  **West South Central**          **110**     **227**    **237**    **308**    **321**

  Arkansas                        11          35         40         53         53

  Louisiana                       9           28         23         43         40

  Oklahoma                        26          68         70         104        79

  Texas                           64          96         104        108        149

  **Totals**                      **1,965**   **2507**   **2514**   **2669**   **2746**
  ------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**VI. GRANTS PROGRAM**:

**[A. Grants:]{.underline}**

> FMCS is authorized by the Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 to
> award grants to support and encourage joint labor-management
> cooperative activities that "improve the labor-management
> relationship, job security and organizational effectiveness." Congress
> funds FMCS Grants Program each year in the agency's appropriation.

In fiscal year 2003, we received 71 grant applications. We awarded 10
new competitive grants and 3 non-competitive (continuation of prior
grants) at a cost of \$1.5 million. These grants supported
labor-management committees representing approximately 1.6 million
employees in both the private and public sector. An independent FMCS
Grants Review Board, chaired by the Director of Labor-Management Grants,
does preliminary scoring of each application. Final selection is made by
the program director.

**[B. Fiscal Year 2003 Grant Funding Summary]{.underline}**

**[AREA]{.underline}**

**[San Diego-Imperial Counties (San Diego, CA)
03-CA/A-006]{.underline}**

\$113,535 Develop strategies to help workers overcome legal barriers to
Employment Using Local Labor-Management Committees

**[Community Services Agency of the Metropolitan Washington
Council]{.underline}**

**[(Washington, DC) 03-DC/A-007]{.underline}**

\$110,668 Implementation of Workplace Issues and Collective Bargaining
in the Classroom in the Metropolitan Washington, DC Area by giving the
students a better understanding of the work in the society in both an
historical and contemporary perspective.

**[PLANT]{.underline}**

**[Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. (Canton, NC)
03-NC/P-002]{.underline}**

\$65,000 The creation of a new, more industry competitive "Employee
Ownership" organizational culture, through a joint Labor/Management
Partnership.

**[INDUSTRY]{.underline}**

H-CAP, INC. (Washington, DC) 03-DC/I-003

\$122,829 Address workforce needs, specifically the current nursing
shortage crisis by creating a training program which will offer an
industry-led nursing education program.

**[International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers/District
Lodge 141M]{.underline}**

**[(South San Francisco, CA) 03-CA/I-004]{.underline}**

\$125,000 Improve labor-management relations and to enhance productivity
and employment security in the airline industry by developing and
supporting highly trained and effective labor-management committees.

**[Consortium for Worker Education, Inc. (New York, NY)
03-NY/I-005]{.underline}**

\$119,243 Develop industry led training and business services to help
decrease the Employment skills shortage and help improve the workers
skills.

**[Alpena General Hospital (Alpena, MI) 03-MI/I-008]{.underline}**

\$116,439 Enhance labor relations in two separate hospitals using a new
nursing profession initiative "The Magnet Recognition Program" to
mandate standards for hospitals to create healthier work environments
and stronger organizations.

**[Mid-Michigan Construction Alliance (Lansing, MI)
03-MI/I-011]{.underline}**

\$120,721 Enhance the chances for finding better ways to achieve
positive outcomes to deal with the many labor-management problems in Mid
Michigan, organized construction community.

**[Association of Joint Labor Management Educational Programs (New York,
NY) 03-NY/PS-009]{.underline}**

\$76,014 Development and implementation of a multi-faceted
labor-management committee training program in order to strengthen and
promote the need for training for the committees.

**[City of Fresno (Fresno, CA) 03-CA/PS-010]{.underline}**

\$70,801 Improve Labor-Management Communication, Trust and
Decision-making during uncertain economic times.

**[VII. FMCS INSTITUTE:]{.underline}**

**[A. Purpose and Course Offering]{.underline}:**

# 

Education and training in labor relations and conflict resolution are an
integral part of the Agency's mission for more than half a century. The
Institute's primary mission is to offer training and education to labor
and management practitioners in a classroom format that is structured,
accessible, and convenient to individuals and small groups than the
site‑based preventive mediation programs. The Institute was established
to respond to the changing needs of modern collective bargaining,
providing essential training in meeting the challenges of
labor-management relations and organizational change.

In fiscal year 2003, the Institute offered 13 classes, covering the
following topics:

-   Mediation Skills for the Workplace

-   Labor-Management Negotiations Skills

-   Mediation Skills

-   Workplace Violence Prevention and Response

-   Becoming a Labor Arbitrator

-   Arbitration for Advocates

Fees received for delivery of training services fund the Institute. All
fees collected will be utilized to recover expenses and administrative
costs of the Institute. Training fees charged to customers are set at a
level that allows the Institute to provide a professionally delivered
product from one year to the next.

**[VIII. EMPLOYMENT MEDIATION:]{.underline}**

### [A. Services Provided:]{.underline} 

Mediation of employment-related disputes is available to federal, state,
and municipal government agencies. These services include mediation,
conflict resolution systems design, education, training, and the
facilitation of multi-party regulatory, environmental and public policy
negotiations. All these services are successful alternatives to costly
and time-consuming litigation in the settlement of conflict.

FMCS mediates disputes both within agencies (e.g., age discrimination
and other unfair employment complaints, whistleblower complaints) and
between agencies and their regulated public (e.g., environmental
disputes).

The longer-term objective is to assist agencies in institutionalizing
these processes. FMCS "trains the trainers," imparting these skills to
agency personnel so they can construct their own dispute resolution
system, and also train others within their organization.

**1. [Federal Employment Mediation:]{.underline}**

FMCS concluded nearly 1310 ADR cases for numerous governmental agencies
in fiscal year 2003. For most of the governmental agencies listed below,
we mediate workplace and discrimination disputes. Our government
contracts include:

-   **Equal Employment Opportunity Commission**

-   **United States Postal Service**

-   **Health and Human Services**

-   **Department of the Interior**

-   **Internal Revenue Service**

-   **Department of Agriculture**

-   **Department of the Navy**

-   **Immigration and Naturalization Service**

-   **Federal Bureau of Investigation**

-   **Housing and Urban Development**

Additional work included the following:

# **[a. Bureau of Indian Affairs]{.underline}** 

The FMCS facilitated a four-year regulatory negotiations process for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, a division of the Department of Interior. The
Departments of Interior and Transportation allocated \$275 million for
road construction and maintenance projects, but a funding formula was
required to determine the appropriate distribution of the funds to
various stakeholders. The stakeholder representatives included
twenty-nine tribal representatives, representing the nation's 556
recognized tribes throughout the U.S., eighteen federal representatives,
and over fifteen technical and legal consultants. Negotiations ran in
excess of twenty months. This became a critical issue when current road
projects, needing immediate attention, had to rely on special
apportionment from the existing formula.

The committee faced a number of dilemmas: how, when, and at what level
of funding would the funds be earmarked and distributed, to what tribes,
and when. Partial funds were distributed, but planning was disrupted
because of unclear mandates from government officials and tribal
leaders. After 4 years of negotiations, concluding in late 2002,
agreements were reached on key issues of population, land use, mileage,
maintenance and the crafting of two formula options. A notice was
published in the Federal Register outlining the committee's draft rule
for fund distribution based on specific formulas. Over 1800 comments
were received. Committee protocols required that the group consider
these comments. After reviewing the public comments in 2003, adjustments
were made to the proposed rule and the matter has been resolved.

## [b. Environmental Protection Agency]{.underline} 

In September 2001, FMCS began consultative services with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
(ORD) seeking to improve employee morale. ORD is the scientific research
branch of EPA and employs the nation's leading scientists at various EPA
labs. During the initial phase of the working relationship, we developed
site-specific improvement plans and implemented the plan at the local
lab level. Various programs included conflict management training in
communications, diversity, leadership development, and management. ORD
incorporated organizational change to address employee morale and legacy
planning, and we continue to serve as a consultant for conflict
management models. Most recently, we designed a comprehensive,
conflict-management training program, which will be implemented in FY
2004.

**[IX.]{.underline}** **[International Training and
Exchange]{.underline}**:

FMCS is responding to increasing requests for conflict resolution
services outside the traditional domestic labor-management arena. FMCS
plays an important role in promoting collective bargaining and conflict
resolution in other nations. Friendly foreign governments have sought
our assistance in designing systems that resolve and prevent industrial
conflict where a formal system has not been developed to manage it. We
have held briefing sessions for foreign union and management officials
to familiarize them with U.S. labor-management history, laws, and
practice.

The International team develops a program plan, outlining specific
services, potential venues for those services, and possible funding
sources. Since FMCS receives no appropriated funds for its International
programs, mediator salaries and expenses are reimbursed through such
entities as the Department of State, The United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), or the United States Department of
Labor.

Overall, we assisted 60 foreign government organizations in FY 2003.
Some examples include the following:

# **[a. Baltic Mediation Training Project]{.underline}** 

In September 2001, FMCS conducted training in dispute resolution
techniques for labor, management, and government officials in Riga,
Latvia and Vilnius, Lithuania. We maintained our cooperative efforts
through fiscal year 2003 and developed a special training program to
expose at least one mediator candidate from each country to FMCS dispute
resolution techniques. One attorney from the central trade union
confederation of Latvia, one labor attorney from the Estonian Ministry
of Labor, and one mediator from an NGO from Lithuania, were selected to
participate. All three attended new mediator training in the United
States (along with other newly hired FMCS mediators) and were assigned
to an FMCS Regional Office for 3 weeks, where each had the opportunity
to observe mediators working in many different states. This project was
funded by the Department of State, Northern European Initiative, and the
U.S. Baltic Foundation. Our cooperation continues in the fall 2003, in
Riga, Latvia, where we will train labor, management, and government
officials in dispute resolution techniques.

**[b. Mediation and Arbitration Services in Bulgaria]{.underline}**

For four years, FMCS assisted Bulgaria in building democratic
institutions for conflict resolution. In previous years, we hosted
high-level officials from labor, management, and government who observed
a wide variety of labor-management conflict resolution systems. As a
result, and with our assistance, the Bulgarian National Institute for
Conciliation and Arbitration (NICA) was formed. In May 2003, 35
mediators were selected to join that organization, and we designed and
implemented training for the newly appointed mediators. Introductory
mediation training was provided in May 2003, and we have commenced
discussions with NICA's Executive Director about follow-up training on
arbitration services and the establishment of a code of ethics.

**[c. South Korea]{.underline}**

South Korean's Labor Education Agency, Korea Labor Education Institute
(KLEI), sent seven labor relations professionals, professors, and
attorneys to attend the FMCS Institute's course in mediation skills.
Subsequently, five individuals from the Korean delegation participated
in preventive mediation training and shadowed mediators in the Seattle
area. FMCS and KLEI executed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to
collaborate on their respective labor relations and alternative dispute
resolution techniques and approaches.

**[d. Conciliation Institutions in Peru]{.underline}**

## The government of Peru asked for our assistance in strengthening its ability to provide mediation services. The government also sought assistance in creating and training private sector labor mediators. We conducted 4 training programs attended by representatives of labor, management, and conciliators, and also conducted a "train the trainer" program for government conciliators who are expected to form the nucleus of a training team for other conciliators/mediators in the country. 

With respect to strengthening the government's ability to provide
mediation services, we facilitated a steering committee for the
development of a new Center for Mediation, Arbitration & Investigation
(CENCOAMITP) in the Labor Ministry. It is now the first entity to
provide labor conciliation outside of the judicial system. The Labor
Minister, Fernando Villarán De La Puente, personally attended the
meetings that formed this new center, which commenced activities in July
2003.

We were also asked to assist the government in development of a private
sector labor mediation practice. The Ministries of Labor and Justice
signed an agreement laying out a framework of cooperation allowing for
extrajudicial labor conciliation. The new Center for Mediation,
Arbitration and Investigation is expected to train a cadre of private
sector conciliators who will, for the first time, provide extrajudicial
labor conciliators to generate agreements enforceable in a court of law.

**[e. Serbia and Montenegro]{.underline}**

The American Center for International Labor Solidarity Center, in a
project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID),
asked the FMCS to promote and develop conflict resolution mechanisms for
unions, employers, and government agencies in war-torn Serbia and
Montenegro.

To achieve this objective, FMCS will work with the Solidarity Center
from 2003 through 2005 to provide education and guidance on improving
negotiations and developing institutional capacity to resolve disputes.
During this period, we continue to conduct education programs with
partners in Serbia and Montenegro to achieve these objectives. In April
2003, we met with labor, management, and government officials
separately, and in focus groups, to develop training needs and guide the
development of training materials. In June 2003, we commenced our first
training session. It involved interest based bargaining techniques and
communications skills for labor, management, and government officials.
The parties in both republics are committed to establishing a mediation
and arbitration service and to creating the necessary legal frameworks
for these to flourish. Both ministries will draft legislation, and we
have pledged our assistance in facilitating meetings among interested
stakeholders in drafting the legislation. In the meantime, we continue
to work with Serbia and Montenegro to develop training programs geared
to problem-solving, grievance and arbitration machinery, appropriate
contract language, and resolution of individual and collective labor
disputes. Additional activities are planned for the next two years.

[**f. Argentina:**]{.underline}

The objective of this project, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor,
was to strengthen the capacity of the Province of Córdoba, Argentina
(the second largest province in Argentina) to conciliate labor disputes
in the wake of the volume of dismissals resulting from the deep economic
recession in Argentina. In phase one of the project (November 2001),
FMCS commissioners trained the conciliators and labor inspectors in
interest based problem solving techniques. In phase two of the project,
the team returned to Córdoba in April 2002 to train private sector labor
relations practitioners in win-win negotiation techniques. In September
2002 FMCS trained conciliators from 17 provinces of Argentina, a group
that now comprises a Federal Mediation Training Team. The provinces of
Río Negro, Mendoza, Buenos Aires, and Neuquén, among others, have
already delivered training programs to their respective labor-management
communities. Finally, in May 2003, FMCS provided a "train the trainer"
program to many of the other members of the Federal Mediation Training
Team to prepare them for their expanding the training program around the
country.

[**g. Mozambique:**]{.underline}

In collaboration with the United States Department of Labor, during
2002-2003 FMCS conducted a multi-phase program aimed at enhancing the
capacity of the Mozambican Ministry of Labor. In the first phase
(November 2002), business, labor and government leaders were trained in
the areas of interest-based bargaining, consensus decision-making,
active listening, communication skills and teambuilding. The training
provided the parties with the skills necessary to address a broad range
of issues using an interest-based approach. In phase two (June 2003)
FMCS trained a cadre of Mozambican business and labor leaders to provide
them with a basic understanding of labor-management relations, their
roles and responsibilities as stewards and supervisors, interest-based
problem solving, consensus decision-making, and teambuilding. Finally,
in phase three (September 2003), FMCS commissioners worked with the
Labor Ministry and other tripartite stakeholders to develop a
sustainable program to continue teaching skills to the Mozambican Labor
Relations community after the project has ended. To this end, the
commissioners delivered a "train the trainer" course to teach techniques
for disseminating information on cooperative labor relations.

[^1]: Section 205A(a)(1).

[^2]: Collectively, the West Coast ports handle close to \$300 billion
    dollars a year of goods to and from the United States. The closure
    of the ports for 10 days had a substantial impact on the economy.
    See Section II, infra, for more information regarding the West Coast
    ports dispute and its impact on the economy.

[^3]: The Agency does not assign every active case to a mediator. An
    active case is defined as one where an F-7 has been filed. However,
    not every case is assigned to a mediator. We assign cases where the
    bargaining unit is in excess of 15 or the case involves an initial
    contract.

[^4]: There is an increase in the number of private and public
    faciliators to perform the highly technical task of faciliating
    regulatory negotatiations. Some of the Agency's work has gone to
    other mediators.

[^5]: We awarded fewer grants this year because of a policy decision to
    assign a larger number of grants to industries, and those grant
    receipients received maximum funding allowable. As a result, there
    were fewer grant recipients, but receiving larger grant funding.

[^6]: Notifications to the Service by one or both parties desiring to
    modify a contract that is expiring, or for a specific reopening of
    an existing contract.

[^7]: Notifications from these two agencies regarding certification or
    recertification of bargaining units. Bargaining for an initial
    contract usually follows such certifications.

[^8]: Requests for mediation assistance from public sector parties where
    a state has a Public Sector Board with jurisdiction over labor
    contracts, but no state mediation service is available.

[^9]: Requests from the parties for mediation assistance where no
    notification to the Service has been filed.

[^10]: Case numbers assigned to notifications, certifications, and
    requests received by the Service. Some notifications are
    subsequently consolidated into a single case with a specific case
    number; therefore, the lower total of case numbers issued when
    compared to the intake.

[^11]: Cases assigned to a mediator. The decision to assign a case
    involves many factors and not all cases are assigned.

[^12]: ^13.^ Closed by Final Report filed by the mediator assigned to
    the case or by consolidation of a case with other cases after
    assignment^.^

[^13]: ^14^ Some cases are subsequently consolidated after assignment
    where it is determined that multiple parties will be involved in the
    same negotiations.

[^14]: ^15^ Cases closed where the mediator met with both parties on one
    or more occasions^.^

[^15]: ^16^ Cases closed where mediation assistance did not require any
    meetings with the parties, but where the mediator was in contact
    with the parties during the negotiations^.^

[^16]: ^17^ The number of meetings in closed dispute mediation cases
    where a mediator was present in a meeting between the parties.

[^17]: ^18^ The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports work stoppages over
    1,000 employees. FMCS reports all work stoppages.

[^18]: ^19^ Excludes cases closed by consolidation after assignment.

[^19]: ^20^ Cases closed with agreement reached occur with final
    agreement on an initial contract

[^20]: ^21^ Cases closed without agreement occur after two years if
    agreement has not been reached on initial contract

[^21]: ^22^ Unfair Labor Practices

[^22]: ^23^ For cases closed in the same fiscal year they are received

[^23]: ^24^ Relationship development and training involves the
    assistance of a mediator where a party or parties desires such help
    in improving the relationship during the term of the contract. Such
    assistance may include training, arranging labor‑management
    committees, and special programs.

[^24]: ^25^ Cases assigned to a mediator.

[^25]: ^26^ Closed by a Final Report filed by the mediator.

[^26]: ^27^ Outreach involves mediator meeting with various members of
    the public to discuss and/or explain the processes of mediation.

[^27]: ^28^ Frequently, the labor-management parties request more than
    one panel for arbitration cases, resulting in an increase in the
    number of panels issued over the number of requests received.

[^28]: ^\*^ Overtime pay issues included under this category Economic:
    Wage Rates and Pay Issues.

[^29]: ^\*\*^ Included in this classification are issues concerning
    super seniority and union business.

[^30]: ^\*\*\*^ This classification also includes issues concerning
    safety.