1

To the Congress: 

 

It is my distinct privilege to submit to you the 

Fifty-Third Report of the Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Service (FMCS) in accordance with the 

provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act of 

1947. This report details the activities of this agency in 

fiscal year 2000 

 Today, there is a new FMCS. The structure, the 

leadership, resources and an unprecedented emphasis on employee education and training are in place. 

Along with increased employee accountability for performance are rewards for outstanding work. Systems 

have been established to elicit and use customer feedback for evaluation and guidance in our services and 

operations. Our commitment to customer focus and responsiveness continues. 

 2000 was an important year for FMCS services to our customers. Among the more than 

6,321 collective bargaining negotiations in which our mediators were active was the nation’s largest whitecollar strike by the 17,000 members of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees Association 

(SPEEA) against the Boeing Aircraft Company, America’s largest aerospace manufacturer. We played a 

continuing important role in facilitating the first national contract between the partnership of Kaiser 

Foundation Hospitals and the consortium of unions representing the majority of Kaiser’s employees. 

 FMCS Preventive Mediation Services found fertile ground in 2000 as management and union leaders 

continued to seek new and better ways to work together using new technologies pioneered by FMCS. Our 

Alternative Dispute Resolution services to government continue in wide demand as more agencies have 

turned to FMCS for alternatives to courtroom litigation. 

 

 The American workplace is changing. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service will change 

with it so that we can continue to offer value-added assistance to employers and employees as they confront 

the challenges of modern labor-management relations. 

 Respectfully, 

 C. Richard Barnes 

 Director 
 

2

 

 

 

 

 

A. Agency Mission 

or more than fifty years, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 

(FMCS) has carried out its mission of preserving and promoting LaborManagement Peace in the Nation. The FMCS was created by Congress 

as an independent agency by the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. 

During this time a dedicated cadre of highly trained and skilled mediators who 

provide conflict resolution services to our nation’s employers and their 

unionized employees has carried out the activities of the agency. The primary 

mission of these mediators is to prevent or minimize interruptions to the free 

flow of commerce growing out of labor disputes and to assist these parties in 

improving and maintaining their labor-management relationships. The core 

mission of the Service is Dispute Mediation, a voluntary process in which FMCS 

mediators serve as third-party neutrals to facilitate the settlement of issues 

and disagreements in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. 

B. FMCS Services 

 In carrying out its mission, the Service always depended on the 

acceptability, experience, skills and credibility of its mediation workforce. The 

agencies mediators provide the following services to the public: 

 1. Dispute Mediation – Initial and Successor Contracts 

 2. Preventative Mediation 

 3. Arbitration Services 

 4. Grants Program 

 5. FMCS Institute 

 6. ADR/International 

 7. Youth Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation 

1. Dispute Mediation: Initial and Successor Contract Negotiations 

 Dispute Mediation is a voluntary process that occurs when a third-party 

neutral assists the two sides, or parties, in reaching agreement in contract 

negotiations. This includes initial contract negotiations, which take place 

F
3

between an employer and a newly certified or recognized union representing 

its employees, and negotiations for successor collective bargaining 

agreements. Through Dispute Mediation, FMCS helps avert or minimize the 

impact of work stoppages on the U.S. economy. In FY 2000, FMCS mediators 

were actively involved in 6321 collective bargaining contract negotiations in 

every major industry and service throughout the United States. This is a slight 

percentage increase over FY 1999 dispute activity. 

 Initial contract negotiations are critical as they are the foundation for 

the parties’ future labor-management relationship. Initial contract negotiations 

are often more difficult than established contract re-negotiations since they 

frequently follow contentious representation election campaigns in which the 

parties adopt hardened positions toward each other. Current data indicates 

less likelihood of agreement on initial contracts than in contract renegotiations, even with the assistance of FMCS mediators. . There are higher 

incidences of strikes or lockouts, and threats or actual use of permanent 

replacement workers in initial contract negotiation settings. Additionally, unfair 

labor practice charges can hold up any possibility of agreement and are more 

common in this environment. 

For the last several years, FMCS has placed special emphasis on the 

mediation of initial contract negotiations between employers and unions in 

newly represented bargaining units. Under an arrangement with the National 

Labor Relations Board, FMCS is immediately notified of all new union 

certifications. Our policy is to assign all initial contract cases to mediators as 

soon as we receive the certifications. Mediators are proactively involved in 

assisting the parties and the cases remain open for a two year period if the 

parties do not reach agreement. As a result of our efforts, the parties are 

more successful at reaching agreements on initial contracts. 

 

With regard to successor contract negotiations, FY 2000 was a critical 

bargaining year, with major contracts expiring in East and Gulf coast maritime, 

national master freight, telephone and telecommunications, tire and rubber 

manufacturing, aircraft and aerospace manufacturing, motion picture and 

television advertising production, clothing manufacturing, heavy truck and trailer 

manufacturing, heavy and highway construction, health care, retail food, food 

and grain processing and manufacturing as well as federal, state and local 

public employees and schools. 

Increasing penetration of competing imports brought critical political 

pressures on union leadership in an effort to stem the flow of jobs to non-union 

employers or the job flight overseas to newly developing nations. While wages 

remained relatively stable in recent years, costs of health benefits continue to 

outpace the cost-of-living. Cost containment and sharing proved to be flashpoint 

issues in negotiations as employer provided health-care benefits have been an 

expected and accepted part of the national employment matrix since the end of 

the Second World War. The continuing economic turmoil gave reason to believe 

that extreme wage bargaining positions would be tempered but the specter of 

consolidations and new methods of doing business thrust job security forward 

as a key item on unions’ bargaining agendas. These were some of the complex 

issues facing FMCS mediators during FY 2000 bargaining. 
 

4

 

For FY 2000 data regarding dispute 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. Preventative Mediation 

 Preventative mediation services are collaborative union-management 

processes that concentrate on improving the parties’ long-term relationships. 

In todays changing workplace and economic environment, business 

organizations and their employee unions recognize that the quality of the labormanagement relationship is an important factor in the organization’s ability to 

compete in the marketplace. In preventative mediation, FMCS mediators 

address the workplace relationship by providing education and skills training in 

effective bargaining, communications, joint problem solving and innovative 

conflict resolution. As the United States assumes a leading role in the global 

economy there has been a corresponding need for growth and evolution of 

original collective bargaining models. This evolution has spawned an increase 

in the demand and importance of FMCS Preventive Mediation Services. . 

For FY 2000 data regarding preventative mediation and cases of 

significance during this year, see Section IV. 

3. Arbitration Services 

 When conflicts arise over the interpretation or implementation of a 

contract or contract provision, FMCS assists through the time-tested conflict 

resolution method of 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 some 1350 labor arbitrators. To join the FMCS roster, arbitrators 

must be approved by an Arbitration Review Board, which meets quarterly to 

consider new applicants in order to be appointed to the roster by the FMCS 

Director. 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. 

 As a result of customer feedback and the Arbitration Customer Council, 

FMCS implemented many new policies and procedures. While the arbitration 

panel requests in FY 2000 dropped slightly from FY 1999, we have seen a 

marked increase in the number of “special requirements” requested by the 

parties seeking FMCS arbitrators’ services. Parties are now more experienced in 

tailoring their requests to specific experience in specific industries. We also 

believe that imposing a fee structure in 1997 has steadily reduced the previous 

number of nuisance requests for panels that were without merit. 

 The FMCS also holds annual Arbitrator Symposia in Cleveland, 

Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle. These functions provide FMCS arbitrators 
5

with an opportunity to discuss and share the latest information about their 

profession. 

For FY 2000 data regarding arbitration services and program data, 

see Section V. 

4. Grants Program 

 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 the FMCS Grants Program each 

year in the agency’s appropriation. 

 FMCS awards grants to establish or continue joint committees who 

propose innovative approaches to labor-management cooperation. These 

committees, established on a plant, area or industry-wide basis, bring 

representatives of management and employee unions together on a regular 

basis, and have proved to be effective vehicles for increasing productivity, 

improving product quality and resolving workplace issues. In recent years, they 

have addressed such issues as health care cost containment solutions, 

increasing the competitiveness of a region’s hotel industry, economic 

development, and total quality management in the public sector and 

company/employee co-determination. 

 In fiscal year 2000, the 20 grants recipients (15 new and 5 continuation) 

were selected from 63 applicants requesting more than $7 million in funding. 

An independent FMCS Grants Review Board, chaired by the Director of LaborManagement Grants, does preliminary scoring of each application. The winners 

represented approximately 1.6 million employees in both the public and private 

sector. Final selection is made by the program director. 

 A 1998 study of the FMCS Labor-Management Cooperation Program, 

conducted by the Tennessee Center for Labor-Management Relations 

determined that 71.4% of the Labor-Management Committees established 

through the FMCS grants program continued to operate with independent 

funding after the grant period. Researchers analyzed data from over 200 case 

files of labor-management committees established through FMCS between 

1981 and the start of fiscal year 1997. The research concluded that as many 

as 20 million workers were directly or indirectly affected by the achievements of 

the labor-management committees created with funding through the FMCS 

Labor-Management Cooperation Program. 

For FY 2000 data regarding the grants program and summary funding, 

see Section VI. 

5. FMCS Institute 
 

6

 In FY 1999, the FMCS inaugurated the FMCS Institute, which delivers 

extended training and education to labor and management practitioners in a 

central classroom format. This training is more structured and more conducive 

to intensive focus than the Service’s traditional on-site preventative mediation 

programs. 

 The FMCS Institute offers training in practical conflict resolution skills, 

and provides participants the opportunity to interact with and learn from 

experienced practitioners who use these skills every day. In FY 2000, six 

courses were offered in eight sessions at centralized East, West and Central 

geographic locations. The sessions included: Labor Arbitrator Training; CrossCultural Competencies Course; Negotiations-A 21st Century Tool for Success; 

Mediation Skills for Workplace Disputes; Facilitation Skills and Training; and 

Facilitating Multi-Party Disputes. 

 Fees received for delivery of training services fund the FMCS Institute. 

All fees collected are 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. Seven training courses are planned for FY 2001 in eleven geographic 

locations: Becoming an arbitrator; Negotiating Contracts; Mediation Skills; 

Multi-party Facilitation; and Facilitation using Electronic Technology. 

For FY 2000 data regarding the FMCS Institute and course offerings, 

see Section VII. 

6. ADR/International 

 FMCS is authorized under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 

1996 to provide mediation/problem-solving techniques in non-labor relations 

situations to agencies of national state and local governments as an alternative 

to costly and time-consuming courtroom litigation. Our work in this area includes 

the design of dispute resolution systems, education and training, mediation of 

employment complaints and the facilitation of regulatory negotiations and public 

policy dialogs. These ADR services have increasingly proved to be effective 

alternatives to costly and time-consuming litigation in settling administrative 

disputes and regulatory controversies. 

 Increased globalization of the world’s economy demands export of 

FMCS’ mediation processes, labor relations systems design and conflict 

resolution skills to developing nations throughout the world. Through FMCS 

International Labor Services, mediators have provided, both here and abroad, 

briefings, training and technical assistance in labor relations, mediation and 

collective bargaining to friendly foreign governments. Federal mediators have 

traveled to Central and South America, the Far East, Central and Eastern 

Europe, and Africa, where the Service provides training and technical 

assistance in creating labor-management systems, particularly in countries 

without pre-existing worker-to-employer labor-management systems. 

Delegations from other countries are frequent visitors to FMCS National 

Headquarters in Washington D.C. for briefings and training. FMCS’ skills 

beyond labor relations have increased nationally and internationally. In this 
7

regard, the FMCS receives a growing number of requests for training in 

facilitation of national and international initiatives dealing with security and 

economic development initiatives within and among other nations. 

 Appropriated funds are not used for either ADR or International Services. 

Mediator salaries and expenses are reimbursed through interagency agreements 

and contracts with international organizations. 

 For FY 2000 data regarding ADR and the international program, see 

Section VIII. 

7. Youth Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation: 

 In FY 2000 FMCS began delivering the completed curriculum on Youth 

Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation. Experience teaches that those who 

learn conflict resolution skills early in life carry these skills with them throughout 

their life. American business and its employees benefit from learning cultural 

awareness skills, as America’s workplaces become increasingly diverse giving 

meaning to our nation’s motto of E Pluribus Unum. In future annual reports, the 

Agency will provide data on the Youth Initiative and its impact on our society. 

All FMCS services outlined above are aimed at carrying out the policy of 

the United States that the best interest of the nation is most satisfactorily 

secured through collective bargaining between employers and representatives of 

their employees. History has expanded the interests of these parties to include 

their relationships with agencies of government, the American public and foreign 

entities. FMCS has kept pace and faith with its mission of serving these 

increasingly varied interests. 

C. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): 

FY 2000 Survey Results 

 FMCS conducted the first national survey of labor and management 

negotiators in 1996 as part of its response to the enactment of the Government 

Performance Results Act (GPRA) and the mandate of the National Performance 

Review that federal agencies seek input and feedback from their key customers. 

The Agency conducted a second survey early FY 2000, using the same 

methodology and survey techniques. 

A total of 2,004 management and union negotiators that used FMCS 

services were surveyed telephonically by the Center for Survey Research at the 

University of Massachusetts, Boston. Approximately 400 responses were from 

management or union representatives in the public sector (i.e., state and local 

governments) and the remaining responses were from the private sector. The 

survey response rate was 74%, identical to the response rate achieved in 1996. 

1. GPRA Overall Performance Summary - 

Methodology of the FY 2000 Survey: 

 

The FY 2000 survey asked respondents a variety of questions regarding 

FMCS services. We asked about FMCS’: 
 

8

(a) Performance in mediating contract disputes; 

(b) Impact on trends in the labor-management relationship (i.e., degree of 

cooperation between the parties and the assistance provided by the FMCS in 

improving the relationship); 

(c) Role in interest based bargaining; and 

(d) Public knowledge of other FMCS services, including its arbitration and 

grievance mediation services. 

Performance Summary 

 Overall, the results of the FY 2000 survey are similar to those obtained 

in 1996. This is not surprising given the short period between the two survey 

administrations and the continuity of the environmental contexts over this time 

period. The relative stability in most of the questions asked in the two surveys 

increases our confidence in the reliability of the estimates obtained. The data 

continue to provide a sound basis for assessing the views and preferences for 

services of FMCS customers and a valuable tool for assessing the quality of 

collective bargaining relationships in American society. These data will become 

more informative and valuable to the service and to the public if the survey is 

repeated on a consistent basis in the future years so that longer term trends can 

be observed, and where appropriate, addressed through adjustments in FMCS 

services. 

 Each area covered by the survey is discussed more fully below. 

2. Mediation Services in Contract Negotiations 

In the area of contract negotiations and FMCS’ role in mediating these 

disputes, the survey asked respondents questions in the following areas: 

a. Overall awareness of the FMCS’ mediation services in contract 

negotiations and assessment of those services; 

b. Mediator attributes; 

c. Effects of mediation on the parties’ relationship; 

d. Number of issues open at the start of negotiations; 

e. Use of different mediator strategies; 

f. Preference for future involvement by FMCS. 

Awareness and Overall Assessments: Virtually all labor and 

management negotiators are aware of FMCS and its contraction mediation 

services. Over two thirds have used FMCS services at some point in their 

careers. Ninety percent of union respondents and 81 percent of management 

respondents have a favorable (excellent or very good) view of the FMCS services 

they received in contract negotiations. Eighty nine percent of union 
9

representatives and 81 percent of management representatives indicate FMCS 

mediation services met or exceeded their expectations. Over 90 percent of 

union and management negotiators in both the private and public sectors would 

use FMCS services again in the future. While these and other responses 

indicate consistently positive assessments of these FMCS services, 

assessments of management respondents tend to be somewhat lower than 

union assessments. Management assessments in FY 2000 were, however, 

considerably higher on a number of dimensions than in 1996 survey. 

Mediator Attributes: Mediator knowledge, skills, neutrality, 

understanding of the issues, and trustworthiness were rated as excellent or very 

good by between 80 and 90 percent of labor and management negotiators. 

These ratings declined slightly from the 1996 survey, perhaps reflecting the 

retirement of a large number of highly experienced mediators. We are cautious, 

however, about interpreting this small decline. Future rounds of the survey will 

be needed to determine whether or not this changes again as the large number 

of new recruits gain experience. 

In response to suggestions from customers, a new item was added to 

this list of mediator attributes in 1999—the mediator’s understanding of the 

industry in which the parties work. Seventy percent of management 

respondents and 85 percent of union respondents rated the mediator as being 

excellent or very good on this attribute, ratings somewhat below those obtained 

on the other attributes. 

Effects of Mediation: Overall, approximately one third of the private 

sector respondents (46 percent of union and 26 percent of management 

respondents) indicated that, in the absence of FMCS assistance, a strike or 

lockout would have been likely or very likely. Forty-three percent of union 

respondents and 35 percent of their management counterparts credit FMCS 

mediation as leading to an agreement while another 42 and 43 percent 

respectively indicated mediation brought the parties closer together. The 

comparable numbers from public sector respondents are somewhat higher. 

Fifty four percent of public sector union respondents and 55 percent public 

sector management respondents credit FMCS mediation with leading them to an 

agreement and about 38 percent indicate arbitration or fact finding would have 

been likely or very likely without mediation. 

Number of Issues Open: At commencement of meditation, public sector 

respondents report more issues left on the table when mediation began than do 

their private sector counterparts. About 85 percent of the public sector cases 

had more than four issues left open and nearly one third had more than ten 

open issues, compared to about 60 percent of private sector cases with more 

than four open issues and around twenty percent with more than ten. 

Use of Different Mediator Strategies: Mediators use a variety of 

strategies or techniques to assist in reaching an agreement, depending on the 

issues encountered in a particular negotiation. A number of questions were 

asked of the negotiators in an effort to determine the relative emphasis given to 

different techniques. The parties were asked to report the amount of effort 

mediators gave to certain techniques used during the mediation process. In 

general, mediators place the most emphasis on gaining trust of the parties and 
 

10

identifying the underlying obstacles to an agreement. Other strategies, such as 

dealing with constituents/superiors, controlling hostility, saving face, and 

educating the parties about the process are used in about half the negotiations. 

There were interesting differences in mediation techniques when 

employed in the public sector. Public sector union respondents report slightly 

lower rates of use of certain strategies than do their private sector union 

counterparts. The data suggests that mediators concentrate more on changing 

the positions of public sector managers than on public sector union 

representatives. We caution that the use of different mediator techniques in the 

private and public sectors are rather small and require further analysis before 

reaching firm conclusions. However, the data suggests that the dynamics of 

negotiations and mediation are different in the two sectors. 

 

Preferences for Future Involvement: As was the case in 1996, a strong 

majority (72 percent) of union negotiators would like to see FMCS increase its 

involvement in contract negotiations while a majority of management 

negotiators (60 percent) would prefer FMCS activity to remain at the current 

level. This represents a substantial difference in the views of the two parties on 

this issue. 

In 1996, a majority of both union and management negotiators reported 

FMCS public profile was too low. Since then, efforts were made to increase the 

agency’s profile. An increased number of labor and management 

representatives now believe the Agency’s profile is “about right.” However, 60 

percent of union and 40 percent of management negotiators would encourage 

FMCS to continue efforts to increase public awareness of its services. 

3. Trends in Labor Management Relations 

 

 The FY 2000 survey also asked questions that focused on the nature of 

the collective bargaining relationships today. Before turning to the specific 

questions, it is important to understand the broader contexts in which collective 

bargaining is situated. 

Between 1996 and 1999, private sector union membership continued to 

decline, although the number of newly organized workers increased to over 

200,000 in 1999. Fueled by the continued economic expansion of the 

American economy, unemployment rates declined over this time period thus 

producing extremely tight labor markets for many employers. Simultaneously, 

competitive pressures from global and domestic competition remained strong 

and average wage rates in union and non-union establishments increased a 

modest 3 percent per year. The combination of pressures to increase 

productivity and competitiveness, along with continued diffusion of new 

information technologies led an increasing number of organizations to 

implement new forms of work organization aimed at utilizing the knowledge, 

skills, and motivation of the workforce. All these developments are taking place 

in a highly diverse economy and set of collective bargaining relationships that 

range from highly cooperative to highly adversarial. Finally, despite considerable 

dissatisfaction with the state of labor law by both unions and employers, the 
11

public policy gridlock in this area continues. Against this background, the FY 

2000 survey measured the following trends in labor-management relations: 

(a). The nature of the relationship between the parties (i.e., cooperative 

versus adversarial); 

(b). Rates of change, (i.e., improvement in the relationship); 

(c). Factors influencing negotiations; 

(d). Rates of settlement of bargaining disputes; 

(e). Outcome of bargaining; and 

(f). Workplace innovations and strategic partnerships. 

Each areas is discussed more fully below. 

Nature of the Relationships: The survey data reflect the diversity in the 

nature of collective bargaining relationships described above. Approximately 75 

percent of union and management negotiators report their relationships to be 

very or somewhat cooperative. Managers report somewhat more cooperative 

relations in 1999 than in 1996. Union leaders report the opposite trend. While 

these differences are small and reflect only two data points, it will be important 

to track whether these perceptions continue to diverge or converge in future 

years. A gap in perceptions would suggest that the levels of cooperation being 

reported or perceived by the respondents might not be very deep. As in 1996, 

approximately 20 percent of the union respondents and 15 percent of the 

management respondents report their relationships to be somewhat or very 

adversarial. 

Rates of Change: About 60 percent of the respondents report that their 

relationship is neither improving nor worsening, i.e., it is staying about the same. 

One third indicate their relationship is improving and less than ten percent 

indicate it is worsening. . In those cases where the relationship is improving, 

about two-thirds report the pace of change is slow or very slow. Thus, in the 

overall sample, only approximately 10 percent are improving at what the parties 

judge to be a quick or very quick pace. 

 Data on the rate of change in the parties’ relationship generated 

considerable discussion in the regional briefings and prompted further analysis 

of the data. The question of greatest interest was whether this is a sufficient 

rate and pace of improvement, given the pace of change in the overall economy 

and workforce and the pressures labor and management. For FMCS, a more 

specific question is whether our services are helping the parties to adapt and 

improve their relationships. While more analyses of these data are planned, the 

preliminary cross tabs (presented in Tables 3-7 of the Regional Briefing Report) 

suggest that the direction and speed of change are related to the nature of the 

relationships. Cooperative relationships are more likely to continue improving 

and adversarial relationships are deteriorating further. Thus, if anything, the 

data suggests a nationwide trend toward more variation and perhaps even a 

bifurcation in the quality of labor management relations. With respect to the 

effects of FMCS services, data suggests a positive relationship between FMCS 

services and the maintenance of cooperative relations. We caution that all 

these results are preliminary and are in need of further tracking and analysis on 

a longer term basis before firm conclusions should be drawn from them. 
 

12

Factors Influencing Negotiations: The range of factors that influence 

collective bargaining negotiations remain quite varied, but their rank order 

remains about the same. The five most influential factors continue to be: 

(a). Pressures on fringe benefits; 

(b). Falling real wages; 

(c). Need for work rule flexibility; 

(d). Low trust; and 

(e). Fear of job loss. 

With the exception of work rule flexibility, union respondents continue to 

report stronger pressures coming from these factors than their management 

counterparts. 

A new item, pressure from competitors’ human resource practices, was 

introduced in the 1999 survey. Seventeen percent of union respondents and 11 

percent of management respondents indicated this heavily influenced their 

collective bargaining negotiations. Domestic competition was perceived to be a 

more important factor than international competition. Strike threats were 

perceived to be important by 12 percent of union negotiators and only four 

percent of management negotiators. 

A strike, lockout, or job action occurred in only five percent of the 

negotiations. The threat of using replacement workers was reported to be an 

issue by 11 percent of union negotiators and six percent of management 

negotiators, while replacement workers were actually used in one to two percent 

of the cases. While this number is small, it represents approximately twenty 

percent of the actual strikes or lockouts that occurred in these negotiations. 

Settlement Rates and Timing: The rates of settlement reached in both 

renewal and first contract cases were higher in FY 2000 than in 1996 when the 

survey was first conducted. Ninety-seven percent of renewal contracts reached 

agreements, as did approximately 90 percent of first contracts. This latter 

number is considerably higher than in 1996 when just fewer than 80 percent of 

the parties reported reaching agreements in first contract negotiations. 

Approximately one in four successor contract negotiations do not reach 

an agreement until one month or more after the contract expiration date. This 

suggests that a considerable number of parties are not resorting to strikes or 

lockouts if agreement is not reached by the expiration date but instead continue 

to bargain well after the deadline until they reach agreement. About half of the 

public sector negotiations extend one month or more beyond the contract 

expiration date, a rate considerably higher than that of the private sector. 

Outcomes: Data on bargaining outcomes suggest a decline in the 

number of wage concessions and benefit reductions and an increase in 

settlements containing more flexibility in work rules. Nearly all contracts 

resulted in some wage increases. Union negotiators reported benefit increases 

in approximately 70 percent of their contracts compared to 53 percent of 

management negotiators. Union negotiators also are more likely to report 
13

achieving improvements in job security and union security than do management 

negotiators. 

Workplace Innovations and Strategic Partnerships: The FY 2000 

survey asked a new series of questions about whether workplace innovations or 

strategic partnerships (consultation, information sharing, or joint decisionmaking between labor and management representatives) occurred during the 

term of the agreement following the most recent negotiations. Approximately 

one in four negotiations feature follow-up activity involving teams, employee 

involvement or quality improvements. Most of these were initiated either by 

management or through joint management and union efforts. A little over onethird of the parties report that some form of strategic partnership exists. The 

parties rate the majority of these partnerships as being moderately successful. 

4. The State of Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) 

 The FY 2000 survey also asked a series of question about interest based 

bargaining (IBB). In particular, we asked about: 

(a). Parties’ awareness and use of IBB; 

(b). Use of specific IBB practices; and 

(c). Future use of IBB. 

Awareness and Use: The relatively high rate of awareness and use of 

interest based bargaining reported in the 1996 survey (60 percent and 40 

percent respectively) prompted additional focus on these techniques in the FY 

2000 survey. Overall, awareness and use of IBB increased somewhat between 

1996 and 1999 among private sector respondents. By 1999 over 80 percent of 

union negotiators and 67 percent of management negotiators were familiar with 

IBB and a majority of both sets of negotiators had used these techniques. While 

about half of the union negotiators and 70 percent of the management 

negotiators who used IBB prefer it to traditional negotiating procedures, these 

percentages are between five and ten percentage points lower than in 1996. 

Still, between 60 and 77 percent of labor and management negotiators who 

used it rate IBB as good, very good, or excellent. 

There is very high, nearly universal awareness of IBB among public 

sector negotiators. Use and preferences for IBB are about the same among 

public sector negotiators as with their private sector counterparts. 

Use of Specific IBB Practices: The questions probing the use of more 

specific IBB practices indicate that about one third to 40 percent engaged in prenegotiations training in IBB. Around twenty percent used some type of joint task 

force prior to negotiations, about one-third agreed on ground rules prior to 

bargaining, and about twenty percent provided some prior notice to their 

constituents prior to using IBB. Data and information sharing, joint task forces, 

and consensus decision-making principles were used in the majority of IBB 

negotiations. Private caucuses were also used in about three-fourths of these 

cases and a majority shifted somewhat away from IBB when the contract 

deadline was reached, suggesting that the parties are fashioning a bargaining 

process that mixes features of IBB with more conventional processes. 
 

14

Backlash and Future Use: About one in five parties indicated some 

form of backlash from constituents over use of IBB while roughly the same 

number indicated their intent to continue using IBB in the future. 

5. Additional FMCS Services 

The FY 2000 survey asked respondents about their awareness, use, and 

evaluation of other FMCS services. . 

Arbitration: There is broad awareness and use of the arbitration 

services provided by FMCS. Ninety percent of the parties are aware of the 

arbitration service and about two-thirds of those who know about it have used it. 

Eighty percent of union respondents and 70 percent of management 

respondents agree it is important for FMCS to continue to provide arbitration 

services. Slightly more than 80 percent of those who report using FMCS and 

other arbitration services rate FMCS services to be of the same or better quality 

than the other services they use. 

Grievance Mediation: Approximately two-thirds of the parties report 

awareness of FMCS’ grievance mediation services. However, only about onefifth report using it. Of those that have used, the vast majority rated it as 

excellent, very good, or good. 

Other Training: About 22 percent of union respondents and 50 percent 

of management respondents report using some other FMCS training service. 

Over ninety percent of those who use these services rate them as excellent, very 

good or good. IBB training appears to be among the most frequently used 

service in recent years. 

D. Nature of Collective Bargaining in FY 2000: 

 FY 2000 was a critical bargaining year, with major contracts expiring in 

East and Gulf coast maritime, national master freight, telephone and 

telecommunications, tire and rubber manufacturing, aircraft and aerospace 

manufacturing, motion picture and television advertising production, clothing 

manufacturing, heavy truck and trailer manufacturing, heavy and highway 

construction, health care, retail food, food and grain processing and 

manufacturing as well as federal, state and local public employees and schools. 

 

The consolidation of companies in response to increasing global 

competition continues to strain the American collective bargaining process as 

companies seek to retain competitive advantage in markets that are now 

worldwide. Continuing economic pressures in the delivery of health care put 

extraordinary pressure on that industry and its costs of service delivery. This 

continues to have a paradoxical roll-up effect on the costs of providing historically 

accustomed health care benefits to the nation’s organized employees. Increasing 

penetration of competing imports brought critical political pressures on union 

leadership in an effort to stem the flow of jobs to non-union employers or the job 
15

flight overseas to newly developing nations. While wages remained relatively 

stable in recent years, costs of health benefits continue to outpace the cost-ofliving. Cost containment and sharing proved to be flashpoint issues in 

negotiations as employer provided health-care benefits have been an expected 

and accepted part of the national employment matrix since the end of the 

Second World War. The continuing economic turmoil gave reason to believe that 

extreme wage bargaining positions would be tempered but the specter of 

consolidations and new methods of doing business thrust job security forward as 

a key item on unions’ bargaining agendas. 

 FMCS mediators were actively involved in 6321 collective bargaining 

contract negotiations in every major industry and service throughout the United 

States in FY 2000. This represents a slight increase over FY 1999 dispute 

activity. Federal mediators and the Director played an integral part in the 

settlement of the largest white-collar strike by 17,000 members of the Society of 

Professional Engineering Employees of America (SPEEA) at the Boeing aircraft 

company. Some other significant defense related disputes involving FMCS 

mediation efforts include Bath Iron Works Shipbuilding and the International 

Association of Machinists and the Raytheon Corporation and the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Non-defense strike involvement 

included the massive stoppage by Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American 

Federation of Television and Radio Artists against the Association of National 

Advertisers and Advertising Agencies; Phoenix Transit Systems and the 

Amalgamated Transit Union; Washington DC’s Washington Hospital Center and 

the DC Nurses Association; the 10,000 members of the Service Employees 

Union Local 1 of Chicago against the Building Owners and Management and 

Suburban Cleaning Contractors Associations. 

FMCS was involved in disputes that resulted in settlements without work 

stoppages. The most important was the national agreement between Kaiser 

Permanente healthcare system and the eight unions who belong to its national 

labor-management partnership covering 60,000 employees of Kaiser 

nationwide. This was accomplished and was a logical follow-on to a massive 

Interest Based Bargaining training effort by a team of FMCS mediators in FY 

1999. With FMCS mediator assistance, the Chicago Symphony reached a new 

five-year agreement with the Chicago Federation of Musicians minutes before 

the possible cancellation of a season opening concert featuring world famous 

cellist YoYo Ma. 

E. Technology Assisted Group Solutions (TAGS): 

 FY 2000 saw the introduction and development of Technology Assisted 

Group Solutions System (TAGS). The TAGS system uses computer technology to 

reach solutions to problems by helping groups brainstorm, gather and organize 

information, prioritize, evaluate and build consensus faster than traditional group 

meetings. By the skillful utilization of a network of computers and customized 

computer software, FMCS mediators became even more successful helping 

people develop meaningful solutions to workplace and organizational 

management problems and developing more positive working relationships. 

FMCS demonstrations of TAGS throughout the nation in FY 2000 met with 

overwhelming enthusiasm as well as developing many new ideas for its utility as 

a problem solving enabler. In the coming years, as TAGS usage grows and the 
 

16

technology improves, we will be measuring its impact on collective bargaining 

negotiations and mediation of disputes. 

F. Summary 

 All FMCS activity is aimed at promoting and improving the 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 Dispute 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. FMCS Preventive Mediation Services offers 

labor and management the skills to improve long-term workplace relationships. 

Arbitration Services provides the internal jurisprudence that helps the parties 

administer their collective bargaining agreements. The grants program 

promotes innovative, joint approaches to building better relationships. Through 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Services, FMCS helps government agencies 

reduce the likelihood of litigation, speeds up federal processes, and improves 

the delivery of regulated government services. FMCS international services 

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. 

 While there are fewer cases involving work stoppages in recent years, 

strikes and lockouts that do occur are often more protracted, difficult, and 

contentious. The complexity of issues in today’s collective bargaining arena 

require FMCS mediators to play increasingly important roles in critical 

negotiations and in guiding the parties to constructive agreements rather than 

work stoppages. FMCS preventive mediation programs concentrate on 

improving the parties’ long-term relationships through the addition of new skills 

and knowledge. America’s corporations and their unions seek this training in 

order to achieve organizational effectiveness, preserve the competitive position 

of their enterprise, and to maintain a sound, secure employment base. 

 
17

 

A. Dispute Mediation Process: 

n collective bargaining, Dispute Mediation is a voluntary process which occurs 

when a third-party neutral assists the two sides, or parties, in reaching 

agreement in contract negotiations. This includes initial contract negotiations, 

which take place between an employer and a newly certified union representing 

its employees, and negotiations for successor collective bargaining agreements. 

In Dispute Mediation, FMCS mediators are in touch with both parties even 

before negotiations actually begin. The legally required notice of intent to open a 

collective bargaining agreement triggers the contact. During negotiations, 

effective mediators use knowledge of the parties and issues "on the table" to 

guide negotiators through potential deadlocks to a settlement acceptable to both 

sides. Mediators may make suggestions, and offer procedural or substantive 

recommendations with the agreement of both parties. However, they have no 

authority to impose settlements. Their only 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 2000 Cases of Significance: 

1. The Boeing Company/ 

Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace 

 The nation’s first great labor strike of the millennium ended after 40 

days as the 17,000 white collar engineering and technical employees of the 

nation's largest aerospace employer ratified a new three year agreement. 

 The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) 

was founded as an independent union and represents 22,600 Boeing Company 

engineering and technical workers in Washington, California and Kansas. The 

union had recently affiliated with the International Federation of Professional and 

Technical Engineers, an AFL-CIO union, and became Local 2001 of that 

organization. 

 The strike began after five months of frustrating bargaining with little 

progress. The Company’s “last proposals” were rejected three times by the 

I
 

18

SPEEA members who saw their status as second class to employees represented 

by the International Association of Machinists (IAM) who successfully reached 

agreement with Boeing less than a year earlier. The term “respect” entered the 

collective bargaining lexicon and it proved to be a powerful weapon in uniting the 

SPEEA membership. 

 The FMCS Director requested postponement of the strike, called for the 

first week of February. The parties agreed, but after two days, there was little 

change in the positions of the parties and the union struck on February 9. The 

company maintained its firm positions on the issues and conducted a publicity 

campaign touting its positions. The union maintained a presence with the public 

and its membership through the Internet and several unofficial and SPEEA’s 

official web page carrying their message. 

 FMCS continued to explore the situation with both sides and in late 

February called them back to the bargaining table. These meetings found some 

small areas of movement but nothing that would break new ground toward 

ultimate settlement. Management publicly declared its belief that the parties 

reached impasse and indicated its intent to implement its last offer. By this 

time, the strike by 17,000 white-collar workers attracted the attention and 

interest of other unions and support grew for the normally docile engineer and 

technical union. 

 The FMCS Director called the negotiators to Washington, and after an all 

night session, the parties reached an agreement that the union recommended to 

its membership for ratification. The membership ratified the contract. 

This was a costly strike. Boeing lost about $5.2 billion in market 

capitalization on a 15% decline in stock decline. Delivery was missed on at least 

5 aircraft. Boeing’s numerous requests for aircraft technical support went 

unanswered during the strike. The union slogan “No Brains No Planes” was 

prophetic. 

Despite the costs of the strike, the parties, with FMCS assistance, 

pledged a renewed understanding of the collective bargaining process. Phil 

Condit, President and CEO of Boeing, endorsed thee collective bargaining 

process in the following statement made at the conclusions of the all-night 

mediation session: “Throughout the almost five months of negotiations with 

SPEEA and the 38 days of strike, many employees said we were seeking respect. 

I believe we now have a better understanding of what is meant by that term. 

One day I hope we can look back on this time as a turning point-a time when we 

more clearly recognized the importance of listening and seeking to understand 

each other. So that we can't lose sight of what we’ve learned, I am pledging my 

time and energy to a new ‘working together’ joint-task force that will focus on the 

issues impacting the engineering and technical communities.” 

2. Kaiser Permanente/Multi Unions: 
19

 Kaiser Permanente healthcare system and a coalition of AFL-CIO unions 

representing more than 65,000 employees in California, Colorado, Oregon, Ohio, 

Missouri, Maryland and Washington, D.C., used labor-management partnership 

as the vehicle for its nationwide contract bargaining. 

Eight unions constitute the partnership with management. These eight 

unions include: American Federation of Teachers; American Federation of State, 

County, and Municipal Employees; International Federation of Professional and 

Technical Engineers; Kaiser Permanente Nurse Anesthetists Association; Office 

and Professional Employees International Union; Service Employees 

International Union; United Food and Commercial Workers Union; and United 

Steelworkers Union. 

The partnership committed itself to developing and refining an affordable 

and balanced national agreement based on recommendations from seven 

bargaining unit task groups. Each of the 7 task groups comprised of 30 union 

and management personnel who were responsible for developing bargaining 

proposals in the following areas: wages; benefits; health and safety; work/life 

balance; performance and workforce development; quality and service; and 

work-life innovation. Prior to beginning their task, each task group received 

lengthy training in Interest Based Bargaining (IBB). 

Working with the assistance of FMCS mediators and some outside 

consultants as facilitators, the parties used the innovative Interest Based 

Bargaining (IBB) process to develop “common issues” which would apply to 33 

contracts with 26 locals of eight international unions. The purpose was to merge 

common issues in one forum and deal with those issues during national 

bargaining, rather than local-level bargaining. The common issues committee 

developed and refined the national agreement including the principles behind its 

clauses, guidelines for implementation, and alternate options for the scattered 

diverse locals. Subsequently, the local agreements were customized to fit their 

needs using the national agreement as the framework for their negotiations. 

Local negotiations were accomplished through Interest Based Bargaining 

(IBB). Although either party had the right to withdraw from IBB and revert to 

traditional adversarial bargaining, the majority of the bargaining process was 

successfully completed through the interest-based bargaining. 

The results included a five-year national agreement with local 

supplements tailored to the individual needs of the diverse segments of the 

Kaiser system. The first of its kind in the health care industry, it provides 

employment and income security for a majority of the 60,000 unionized Kaiser 

employees nationwide. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney supported the 

agreement and particularly the job security issues raised during bargaining. He 

expressed great satisfaction that workers would be “redeployed rather than laid 

off as a result of restructuring or other changes at Kaiser. Displaced employees 

will be placed in comparable jobs, within a reasonable geographic area, with 

comparable rates of pay, working hours, and shift assignments.” 

Management also expressed satisfaction with the job security provisions 

of the agreement. Kaiser’s chairman and chief executive officer, David 

Lawrence, said that in making a long term commitment to employees, "We 
 

20

believe that attracting and retaining committed employees and making the best 

possible use of their knowledge is the key to meeting the challenges of the future 

in health care....we will do everything possible to retain these valuable workers. 

We’re empowering employees to be leaders of change and eliminating any 

incentive to resist change.” 

3. Association of National Advertisers & American Association of Advertising 

Agencies / Screen Actors-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists 

 The six month strike by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American 

Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) against the advertising, was 

the most costly work stoppage, when measured in actual days lost to a strike. 

The 135,000 members of the combined organizations collectively suffered 

17,280,000 days of idleness as a result of the dispute. 

The key issue in the dispute was the industry proposal to eliminate the 

“pay for play” residual payments for commercials and replace it with a one time 

fee for both broadcast and cable use. The unions wanted to increase the 

amount of pay for residuals while adding new payments for cable and Internet 

transmission and an improved system for monitoring advertising usage. 

The entertainment industry is one of the most heavily unionized 

segments of the American economy and there was no shortage of high profile 

support for the striking unions. The advertising industry used its skills and 

mounted advertising campaigns in general and trade print publications, and 

broadcast their version of the dispute in the media. The unions responded in 

traditional ways by picketing businesses that avoided the strike by using nonunion performers. The unions also used their high profile and popular 

entertainment icons to publicize their position to the American public. The union 

also signed interim agreements with smaller agencies that allowed them to 

continue to produce commercials as well as providing employment for union 

performers during the strike. The union even produced its own television 

commercials to answer those produced by the advertising industry. 

FMCS regularly monitored the negotiations. The mediator had two 

meetings during the summer of 2000 to explore the parties’ positions with little 

progress in either attitudes or positions of the parties. The mediator adjourned 

the meetings subject to his recall. 

The strike continued through the summer and in late August, FMCS 

prevailed on the parties to return to the bargaining table. Mediation sessions 

were held under a news blackout, and after 3 days, a joint statement issued by 

the parties reflecting a change in attitude. 

The parties met continuously through September but negotiations stalled 

over the jurisdiction of the union for Internet commercials and rates of payment 

for cable commercials. The parties remained far apart on compensation issues. 

The unions sought a 10.3% increase over 30 months while the advertising 

agencies offered 7% over a three-year period. 
21

The mediator proposed that the parties return to work for a 90 day 

“cooling off” period. The mediator recommended that employees return to work 

under the terms of the expired agreement and any new terms would retroactively 

apply to the beginning of the cooling off period. The unions turned down the 

proposal because they believed the agencies would stockpile ads and prolong 

the dispute if and when the strike resumed. 

FMCS called the parties back to the bargaining table and after four days 

of intensive bargaining, the parties reached tentative agreement on a new 

contract. Neither side achieved all of their goals, but both sides were satisfied 

that they had arrived at constructive solutions to their problems allowing them to 

return to work. The unions resumed work on October 30 and the longest strike 

in Hollywood history, eclipsing the 154-day Writers Guild strike in 1988. 

 

4. Building Owners Management & Suburban Cleaning Contractors Associations 

/ Service Employees International Union Local 1 

For decades, members of General Service Employees International Union 

(SEIU) Local 25 cleaned Chicago’s downtown loop office buildings. The Building 

Owners and Managers Association (BOMA-Chicago) managed the buildings 

including the negotiation of labor agreements. Local 25 also represented the 

building security officers and elevator operators. As suburban development 

grew, the Union, with increasing success, began to organize the suburban 

cleaning companies. Though successful in organizing, SEIU had limited success 

at the bargaining table. Health insurance was non-existent, and wages were 

significantly lower then the downtown rates. 

In the mid-1990s, the long-time leadership of Local 25 was removed, the 

local placed in trusteeship and the members were placed in Local 1. As part of 

the International Union’s Justice for Janitors campaign, Local 1 made an 

increased effort at suburban organizing and successfully developed a stronger 

rank and file in both the downtown and suburban groups. 

The contracts covering the union’s 5500 downtown members and 4500 

suburban members were set to expire April 9, 2000. Negotiations focused on 

union demands for increased wages, vacations, and pensions for the downtown 

contract, and family health insurance and wage parity for the suburban contract. 

Unable to reach agreement by contract expiration, the parties agreed to FMCS 

mediator assistance and extended the agreements until the mediation sessions 

could be held. Mediation sessions were scheduled for April 17 for the downtown 

contract, and April 18 for the suburban contract. 

During ongoing mediated negotiations for the downtown contract, the 

union set a strike deadline of 4:45 p.m. As negotiations continued, the deadline 

passed, and strikers began demonstrating in the downtown streets below the 

12th floor meeting rooms. As negotiations continued into the evening, the 

strikers continued to gather until the crowd reached an estimated 5000. Shortly 

before 10:00 p.m., an agreement was reached and announced to the 

membership on the streets below. The agreement reached was characterized by 

the union as “the best in a decade.” 
 

22

The next day, the FMCS mediator met with the Suburban Contractors 

Cleaning Association and the SEIU Local 1 Suburban bargaining team. Following 

the pattern established with the downtown contract, the union set a strike 

deadline if negotiations were not satisfactory. As the talks focused on the major 

suburban issues of family health insurance and wage parity, talks began to break 

down and ended in late afternoon. The union began to pull workers off the jobs 

in the suburban buildings and the strike grew to more than 4000 within a few 

days. While no additional mediation sessions were scheduled, FMCS remained 

in contact with the parties. 

During the ten-day strike that followed, striking employees escalated their 

actions to blocking the streets at busy suburban intersections. After fifty-one 

demonstrators were arrested for blocking traffic, off-the-record talks culminated 

in a settlement that provided for a union-run family health plan in the third year 

of the agreement (at a reduced cost to the employer), and a wage increase of 

$1.35. The offer was quickly ratified by the membership and workers returned to 

their jobs. 

5. Nyack Hospital/New York Nurses Association 

These lengthy negotiations began in December 1997 but FMCS was first 

involved in November 1999, when the New York Nurses Association (NYSNA), 

which represented all 435 registered nurses at the facility in Rockland County, 

threatened to strike. The mediator held several sessions but after proper notice1

was served on the hospital, the nurses struck on December 21, 1999. 

The issues impeding a full agreement were the hospital’s insistence on a 

merit pay plan instead of contractual scales and their demand for a reduction in 

contractual paid time off. The nurses were desired three additional experience 

steps on the wage scales and inclusion of staffing language that relieved 

mandatory overtime. The hospital continued to operate during the strike, using 

temporary nurses. 

In early April, hospital management advised the striking nurses that if 

they did not return to work by April 10, 2000, they would be permanently 

replaced. Only two reported back to work. Inside the hospital, significant events 

unfolded, including the election of a new Board of Trustees. The Board’s newly 

elected chair asked for a meeting with the principals of the union. There were 

some breakthroughs at that meeting and the mediator reconvened full 

negotiations. After lengthy bargaining sessions with members of the new 

hospital board, a tentative agreement was reached. A full meeting of the nurses 

membership was called for the following Sunday but the membership rejected 

the tentative agreement despite the recommendation of the union’s leadership. 

The mediator immediately recalled the parties to the table. Using the 

contract rejection as the blueprint for possible settlement, the mediator 

facilitated a new agreement on the contentious issues of merit pay, paid time off 

and the staffing requirements that forced union members to work back-to-back 

 

1

 Section 8(g) of the National Labor Relations Act requires that a labor organization provide 10-day notice to any 

health care institution when it intends to engage in picketing or a strike. 
23

8-hour shifts. A new five-year agreement was reached and ratified by the nurses, 

ending the 151-day strike. 

6. Raytheon/International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 1505 

Union workers at Raytheon Co. ratified a new four-year contract ending a 

five-week strike at the nation's third largest aerospace and defense company. 

The contract was ratified overwhelmingly by the membership of Local 1505, 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). 

 About 2,700 workers went on strike August 27, 2000, demanding 

greater job security and improved health and pension benefits. They 

represented 21 percent of Raytheon's employees located in 10 Massachusetts 

plants. 

State and federal officials, including the Governor’s office, Congressmen, 

Senators and the AFL-CIO, followed the strike closely. Weekly rallies, together 

with significant daily picketing, resulted in arrests, charges and counter charges. 

 Throughout these difficult and highly charged negotiations, the mediator 

worked to maintain open communication between the parties. The mediator 

continuously met privately and jointly with representatives of both sides and 

structured the negotiations to help the parties achieve a mutual settlement. 

7. Phoenix Transit Systems / Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1433 

 

In late summer of 2000, the Operating Engineers Local 428, Teamsters 

Local 104 and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1433 began contract negotiations 

with Phoenix Transit Systems (PTS) in Phoenix, Arizona. PTS operates and maintains 

the municipal bus system for the city of Phoenix and surrounding cities. Prior to 

these negotiations, the City of Phoenix led a successful campaign to raise taxes to 

fund an improved transit system, adding services, new buses and expanded routes. 

This initiative increased transit system employment opportunities. 

The economy at the time raised the union’s expectations. Additionally, there 

were other industries in the area that successfully negotiated unusually high wage 

increases and other economic increases. There was pressure on the negotiators 

from both labor and management to propose an improved contract. However, there 

existed a long history of conflict and mistrust between the parties. 

FMCS mediators were employed from the commencement of negotiations. 

Two Arizona Commissioners dealt with these parties in the past and were aware of 

most, if not all, of the issues during negotiations, including unresolved issues from 

prior negotiations which remained sore points in these talks. In spite of efforts to 

arrive at a peaceful resolution, the union struck. 

The bargaining was plagued by continuing conflict and mistrust between 

the parties. Personality conflicts erupted at the bargaining table, on the streets 

and in the media. At the same time, two other unions of the Phoenix Transit, the 

Operating Engineers and the Teamsters, reached tentative agreements. The 

mediators continued to press the parties, and seven days after the strike began, 

the parties reached tentative agreement that returned bus service to Phoenix. 
 

24

The mediators continue to encourage these parties to participate in 

FMCS’ Relations By Objective (RBO) program. The RBO program provides 

extensive training in building working relationships that aims to jointly resolve 

problems. RBO has been used successfully throughout the nation to improve 

some of the most contentious bargaining relationships, clearing the way for 

constructive and creative bargaining relationships. 

8. Washington Hospital Center/DCNA Negotiations 

 

Negotiations between Washington Hospital Center and the District of 

Columbia Nurses Association (DCNA) were difficult for a variety of reasons. 

There was a history of resentment between management representatives and 

the union. Two FMCS mediators knew they this would be a long and contentious 

negotiations. 

 

FMCS entered negotiations two weeks prior to the union’s strike 

deadline. The mediators explored the interests of both parties in full session and 

private caucus. Although wages and mandatory overtime seemed, on the 

surface, to be the driving factors in the impending strike, lack of trust fueled the 

negotiations. 

In the past, the parties never used full sessions for negotiations, and 

management did not want face-to-face meetings with the union. The mediator’s 

strategy was to get the parties to meet and disclose the real issues and interests 

of their constituents. 

Lengthy caucuses characterized the parties’ sessions (some including 

the mediators, some by themselves). Often, these caucuses lasted well into the 

morning, yielding little substantive counter proposals. As the strike deadline 

drew near, settlement seemed unlikely. 

 

Once the strike began, media coverage at the city’s largest hospital was 

intense. Tempers flared on the picket line when management hired temporary 

replacement workers. The hospital reported that their replacement nurses were 

performing well but costly. 

 

FMCS intensified its mediation efforts. As weeks trudged by, the number 

of picketers dwindled as striking union members accepted other employment. 

The media ceased reporting any news about the strike while other unions joined 

the picket line. Management reduced its wage proposals because it deducted 

the cost of hiring the replacements from the cost of their package to the nurses. 

FMCS top officials intervened in the negotiations to underline the commitment of 

the agency to reaching a settlement. 

 

 During the final week of the strike, the original mediators met with the 

parties around the clock. A breakthrough came with some agreement on 

mandatory overtime. With a final face-to-face meeting, the parties reached a 

settlement. The membership ratified the contract. 
25

9. Bath Iron Works (General Dynamics Corporation) / International Association 

of Machinists 

 

 The world’s shipbuilding industry has constantly completed to lower labor 

costs and to maximize their profit margins. As a result, U.S. shipbuilders must rein 

in labor costs in order to remain viable in this industry. 

 Some 4,800 production employees of Local 6, International Association of 

Machinists (IAM), struck Bath Iron Works after rejecting management’s offer of an 

11.5% wage increase over three-years. The walkout, lasting 8 weeks, shut one of 

two shipyards that produce Ageis destroyers for the U. S. Navy. 

 An FMCS mediator recalled the parties to the table and the parties 

reached a new agreement with no increase in the wage proposal, but providing for 

“cross-training,” affording union members an element of job security. This second 

contract was again rejected by the membership. 

 Negotiations resumed in Washington D.C., where the FMCS mediator was 

joined by W.J. Usery, former Secretary of Labor and one time IAM official. 

Tentative agreement was reached, providing for increases in the wage package 

and a reduction in health insurance co-payments for union members. The contract 

duration was lengthened to 42 months and “cross training” proposals were 

eliminated. The membership ratified the new agreement and returned to work, 

ending the eight-week strike. 

 

10. Pullman Industries / United Auto Workers 

 Pullman Industries supplies automobile parts to Daimler-Chrysler. United 

Automobile Workers (UAW) represents the production and maintenance 

employees. 

To assure a continuing supply of parts, Chrysler sought to have contract 

negotiations concluded at least thirty days before the expiration of the contract. 

The parties reached a tentative agreement without mediation, but the union 

membership rejected the agreement. 

The parties returned to the bargaining table, revised the agreement, but 

that agreement was also rejected. Nearing the thirty-day threshold demanded by 

their major customer, the parties called in the federal mediator. The mediation 

process included traditional joint meetings with bargaining committees, as well as 

informational meetings with all employees. 

Another tentative agreement was achieved with improved contract 

language. The economic provisions remained as previously negotiated. The 

revised offer was presented at a ratification meeting attended by the mediator. 

The membership was dissatisfied with the wage provision and the health 

insurance premiums and rejected the agreement. In order to provide more 

information about the contract’s benefits, union representatives and the mediator 

scheduled meetings with bargaining unit employees. The meetings were held at 

the plant to assure participation. The contract was soon ratified. 

 
 

26

11. Chicago Symphony Orchestra / Chicago Federation of Musicians 

 

 The Chicago Symphony Orchestra (CSO) commenced negotiations with its 

orchestra musicians, represented by the Chicago Federation of Musicians. All 

orchestra musicians yearn to be the highest paid US orchestra. The CSO 

musicians were determined to regain their stature as the highest paid American 

orchestra. 

Although their contract expired on September 10, the orchestra musicians 

agreed to continue rehearsals until opening night, September 15. Internationally 

renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma was scheduled to open the season along with 

Conductor Daniel Barenboim and the Orchestra. Complicating the timing was 

Ma’s performance schedule, allowing for only one rehearsal, scheduled for the 

morning of Wednesday, September 13. 

Despite frequent meetings held in the week prior to opening night, the 

parties remained divided on many important issues. Orchestra management 

concluded that if the rehearsal was not conducted on September 13, opening 

night and Ma’s performance would be canceled. The CSO was unwilling to play an 

opening night performance without a ratified contract. 

The parties agreed to a meeting under the auspices of the federal 

mediator on September 12, less than twenty-four hours prior to the last 

opportunity for Ma’s rehearsal. The parties met all night and reached a full 

tentative agreement the following morning. The orchestra membership ratified the 

agreement just prior to the start of Ma’s rehearsal. The four-year agreement 

preserved the CSO’s status as the highest-paid Symphony Orchestra in the United 

States. 

12. Levy Restaurants / Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE)

 As indicated above, FY 2000 saw the introduction of TAGS technology to 

mediate disputes. In June 2000, a FMCS mediator was asked to provide 

professional and technological support to the ongoing negotiations between a 

nationwide catering firm, Levy, and the Chicago local of the Hotel Employees and 

Restaurant Employees Union (HERE). Several factors distinguished this round of 

talks from other negotiations. 

First, one of HERE’s most experienced negotiators was designated to lead 

the newly experienced bargaining team. Second, the negotiations involved two 

separate bargaining units representing several hundred employees at the 

McCormick Place Chicago convention and banquet facilities and the Navy Pier. 

These two facilities host the largest convention halls in the world. Third, these two 

bargaining units functioned under contracts designed for the hotel industry and 

not the banquet and convention industry agreements; the industries operate 

differently. Fourth, the union’s negotiators were based in New York City while 

management’s negotiators were based in Los Angeles, making face-to-face 

meetings difficult to schedule on a frequent basis. Fifth, the previous contracts 

expired some time ago and a sense of urgency existed to completion negotiations. 

Despite these obstacles, a high level of mutual respect and trust existed between 
27

the parties and, because the parties had geographical limitations to meeting in 

person, FMCS assessed these talks as a good candidate for TAGS. The parties 

agreed to try this new tool and its applications to the collective bargaining process. 

Two types of TAGS supported negotiations were used: face-to-face 

negotiations and remote meeting-conference calls. 

For the face-to-face talks, FMCS set up two LCD projectors, each driven 

by a laptop computer. Laptops were provided for each of the principal 

spokesmen and for the mediator; all were linked by wireless modems to a laptop 

computer configured as a server. A printer was also set up. The two projectors 

displayed the document on the two screens; they were able to easily view the 

language under discussion. The language from the existing McCormick Place 

and Navy Pier contracts were displayed with color-coded union and management 

proposals. This document became known as the "Joint Master Proposal". In 

addition, language from three other HERE contracts in Chicago and New York 

were on disks and available to be displayed upon request, for comparison 

purposes. 

In general, the negotiations were candid. There were very few separate 

caucuses until the last stages of the negotiations. Most notable was the 

attention focused on the language projected on the screens; most of the 

conversation dealt with rephrasing words and sentences. Sentences or entire 

paragraphs were transposed from other agreements, when the parties agreed 

that the language accurately expressed their agreement. In contrast with 

traditional bargaining, in which participants have paper proposals, the committee 

members on the union side were either reading the language on the screen or 

suggesting alternative phrasing. Noticeably absent were the recriminations and 

accusations that may accompany a discussion of difficult matters such as 

discipline or work rules. TAGS provided “instant gratification” that proposals 

were reduced to writing; agreed-upon provisions were, color coded, dated and 

noted by a “TA” (tentatively agreed). 

When the parties reached final economic issues, the mediator reverted 

to traditional mediation techniques, engaging in shuttle diplomacy. The 

transition in bargaining modes was smooth and natural. 

At several points during the negotiations, the parties were unable to meet 

in person. As a result, the conference call–remote meeting capability of TAGS

was employed. The physical arrangement included an LCD projector set up in a 

conference room at the Chicago-area FMCS office; it was driven by a laptop 

linked to the FMCS TAGS server and web site in Washington, D.C. A 

speakerphone was set up in the same conference room. In the conference room 

there were two other telephone lines in the conference room, one for the union 

to link its own laptop into the Internet site, and the second for private 

communication between mediators in Chicago and Los Angeles. The participants 

called into the conference telephone number at the designated time from 

several locations around the country. Each of the remote participants had a 

computer linked into the TAGS web site, and the union committee members in 

the Chicago office had the site displayed on the projection screen. 
 

28

The benefit of TAGS technology is the savings in travel costs to the 

parties and in shipping costs for the entire suite of computer equipment. It also 

preserved the momentum of negotiations for those time intervals when the 

parties’ schedules would not permit them to be in Chicago simultaneously. 

Both the employer and the union have indicated their satisfaction with 

the process and the outcome of TAGS-supported negotiations. In future years, 

the FMCS will quantify the value added by TAGS technology to the collective 

bargaining process and the cost savings to the parties. Qualitative measures of 

these negotiations are much easier to identify. Accurate and timely recordkeeping, the maintenance of focus during discussions on contract provisions, the 

ability to draft and revise contract language virtually instantly in everyone’s view 

all made the face-to-face negotiations a substantive and satisfying experience for 

the participants on both sides. The remote meeting-conference call capability 

preserved momentum during periods when face-to-face meetings could not be 

scheduled, and proved to be a valuable adjunct to the regular bargaining. 


29

C. Dispute Mediation Program Data 

 

Intake 

Fiscal Years 1996 Through 2000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 Union and Employer Notices 1 54,628 54,660 50,170 36,854 34,038

 NLRB and FLRA Certifications2 1,402 1,530 1,750 1,631 1,492

 Public Sector Board Requests3 257 273 207 198 191

 Union and Employer Requests4 1,702 2,122 1,872 1,903 2,521

Total 57,989 58,585 53,978 40,586 38,242 

 

 

Case Numbers Issued 

Fiscal Years 1996 Through 20005 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 27,119 28,330 27,802 25,676 26,323

Case Numbers Assigned 

Fiscal Years 1996 Through 20006 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 19,535 20,844 20,263 19,200 19,574

Cases Closed Fiscal Years 1996 Through 20007 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 By consolidation after assignment 8 1,022 1,230 972 685 1,125

 By Final Report with meetings 9 5,285 5,643 5,784 6,188 6,321

 By Final Report with no meetings 10 13,117 13,383 13,011 12,422 13,291

Total 19,627 20,256 20,139 19,295 20,737 

 

Dispute Meeting Conferences 

 

1 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. 

2 Notifications from these two agencies regarding certification or recertification of bargaining units. Bargaining for an initial contract usually follows 

such certifications. 

3 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. 

4 Requests from the parties for mediation assistance where no notification to the Service has been filed. 

5 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. 

6 Cases assigned to a mediator. The decision to assign a case involves many factors and not all cases are assigned. 

7 Closed by Final Report filed by the mediator assigned to the case or by consolidation of a case with other cases after assignment. 

8 Some cases are subsequently consolidated after assignment where it is determined that multiple parties will be involved in the same negotiations. 

9 Cases closed where the mediator met with both parties on one or more occasions. 

10 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. 
 

30

Fiscal Years 1996 Through 2000 11 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 17,353 18,300 17,923 19,329 17,837

 

 

11 The number of meetings in closed dispute mediation cases where a mediator was present in a meeting between the parties. 
31

 

Work Stoppage Information 

 Fiscal Years 1996 Through 20001 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 

 Work stoppages beginning in the 

 fiscal year 372 378 421 362 400

 

 Work stoppages in closed cases 

 in the fiscal year 388 373 405 411 392

 

 Average duration of work stoppages 

 in closed cases (number of days) 55.8 54.0 43.7 50.5 390

 

Contract Mediation Analysis By Sector 

 Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 

INTAKE 57,989 58,585 53,978 40,586 38,242

 

CASE NUMBERS ISSUED 

 Private Sector 25,496 26,626 26,006 23,856 24,386

 Public Sector 1,007 1,118 1,145 1,141 1,216

 Federal Sector 616 587 649 678 720

 

ASSIGNED 

 Private Sector 25,496 26,626 18,487 17,444 17,681

 Public Sector 985 1,055 1134 1,089 1,168

 Federal Sector 623 593 641 666 725

 

CLOSED CASES 2 

 Private Sector 18,063 18,588 18,036 17,394 18,786

 Public Sector 971 1,091 1,105 1,199 1,209

 Federal Sector 593 577 626 701 742

 

 

 

 

1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports work stoppages over 1,000 employees. FMCS reports all work stoppages. 2 Excludes cases closed by consolidation after assignment.
 

32
33

 

A. Initial Contract Negotiations and Processes: 

nitial contract negotiations are critical because they are the foundation for the parties’ 

future labor-management relationship. A bad start in relations between the employer 

and the union may be felt for years afterward, and ultimately injure the economic 

health of the organization. Initial contract negotiations are often more difficult than 

established successor contract 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. Current data indicates less 

likelihood of agreement on initial contracts than in successor contract negotiations, even 

with the assistance of FMCS mediators. There are higher incidences of strikes or 

lockouts, and permanent replacement workers are used with greater frequency during 

initial contract negotiations. Unfair labor practice charges are more common in this 

environment and can deter an agreement. 

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. Under an arrangement with the National Labor Relations Board, FMCS is 

immediately notified of all new union certifications. 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 19996, 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. 

I
 34

B. FY 2000 Initial Contract Cases of Significance:

1. St. Johns Regional Medical Center / Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 

 

The State of California has one of the three most highly organized health care sectors 

in America. Health care unions have placed particular emphasis on organizing in this state. 

St. Johns Regional Medical Center is a part of the Catholic Hospital Group (20 hospitals in 

California). Elections were held at 18 of the 20 the facilities. 

 Local 399 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was certified as the 

representative of St. John’s registered nurses. Although negotiations began with the 

assistance of a federal mediator, they faltered, and a strike commenced partially because of 

the membership’s unrealistic expectations of success. 

 After a two-week strike, the union returned to work and to the bargaining table at the 

insistence of the FMCS mediator. The union felt it could not reach agreement without 

pressuring the hospital with another strike. After two more days of strike, an initial 

agreement was reached at the FMCS headquarters in Los Angeles. 

 The mediator provided the parties with additional training in contract administration, 

which will assist them in achieving a successful working relationship. 

2. St. Mary’s/Duluth Clinics / United Steelworkers of America 

 

 St Mary’s/Duluth Health Clinics employ 1100 employees represented by United Steel 

Workers of America (USA). Initial contract negotiations lasted nearly a year. Among the most 

difficult issues included one hundred different job classifications, multiple pay scales at 6 

different facilities, different job classifications performing similar work, and similar job 

classifications performing entirely different work. 

Extensive media coverage of the dispute created additional tension. Frustration with 

the length of the bargaining process caused the parties to request FMCS assistance. After 

ten mediation sessions conducted by two FMCS commissioners, the parties reached tentative 

agreement. 

At the conclusion of these negotiations both parties were so pleased with FMCS 

assistance that the two chief spokespersons issued a joint press release commending FMCS 

for its work. Subsequent to the ratification of this first contract, FMCS has been asked to 

provide additional relationship assistance. 
35

 

 

C. Initial Contract Bargaining Data 

 

Initial Contract Bargaining FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY2000

Private Sector initial contract cases received: 1,333 1,606 1,800 1,715 1715

Assigned to mediators: 1,279 1,555 1,730 1,657 1,677

Assigned from NLRB certifications: 1,106 1,306 1,503 1,397 1,296

Assigned from other sources: 

 (e.g. voluntary recognition) 173 249 227 260 381

Cases closed by FMCS: 

 (Mediated and non-mediated) 515 534 597 661 867

Mediated cases closed with agreement reached: 112 142 119 137 231

 Percentage of mediated cases 72.3 82.1 68.4 47.9 52.9

Mediated cases closed without agreement reached: 43 31 55 149 206

 Percentage of mediated cases1 27.7 17.9 31.6 52.1 47.1

Non-mediated cases closed with agreement reached: 198 230 277 249 255

 Percentage of non-mediated cases: 55.0 63.7 65.4 66.4 59.3

Non-mediated cases closed without agreement reached: 162 131 146 126 175

 Percentage of non-mediated cases2 45.0 36.3 34.5 33.6 40.7

Percentage of mediated and non-mediated cases 

 Closed with agreement reached: 60.2 69.7 66.3 58.3 56.0

Closed cases involving ULP3 filed by either party: 32 41 65 75 128

Closed cases involving work stoppages: 8 14 24 19 24

Closed cases involving work stoppages with 

 Agreement reached: 5 8 10 10 14

Average number of days between statutory notice 

 Receipt by FMCS and closure:4 238 122 175 166 176

Average number of days for cases carried over 

 And closed in next fiscal year: NA 359 337 351 363

Assigned cases carried over to next year: 764 1,021 1,416 1,001 813

 

1

 Cases closed with agreement reached occur with final agreement on an initial contract 2

 Cases closed without agreement occur after two years if agreement has not been reached on initial contract 3

 Unfair Labor Practices 

4

 For cases closed in the same fiscal year they are received 
 36

I

 

A. Preventive Mediation Process: 

n today's changing workplace and economic environment, business organizations 

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 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 2000 Preventative Mediation Cases of Significance: 

1. Atlantic Baking Group / Baking Confectionary Tobacco Grain Millers / International 

Union of Operating Engineers 

 The announced closing of a long established bakery in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

rendered another devastating blow to a community, and local economy, still reeling from the 

fall of the once powerful steel industry in Western Pennsylvania. This one-time “icon” in the 

city provided employment for generations of workers who prided themselves in being able to 

produce quality food products for the marketplace. 

Rather than accept defeat, however, leaders within business, labor, local civic 

organizations and government chose to channel their common vision and synergy in a 

positive way. After much hard work and cooperation, they have successfully reopened the 

idled 450,000 square foot manufacturing facility and the community has realized the 

restoration of several hundred family-sustaining jobs. 

The collective efforts of the newly formed Atlantic Baking Group (ABG), the Bakery, 

Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers (BCTGM) Local 12 and the International Union of 

Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 95 represent the epitome of what a true labor-management 

partnership can accomplish, even in the face of daunting circumstances. 

The ABG Labor-Management Committee (ABGLMC) is in the process of transforming a 

manufacturing facility, borne from a traditional management hierarchal structure, into a high 

performance, worker empowered production system. While both management and labor may 

have been initially uncomfortable with functioning together in such an unfamiliar workplace 

model, the outside pressures of competition demanded they change. 

I
37

The ABG LMC was successful in obtaining an FMCS LMC Grant in FY 2000, and will 

be utilizing that funding to bolster their worker re-training programs. Our agency will assist 

with their training requirements and began by administering a needs assessment 

questionnaire to their LMC. The assessment identifies critical skill areas necessary for the 

committee to gain or improve their functional efficiency in areas such as effective 

communications, planning, problem solving and group dynamics. 

Using the assessment results, FMCS builds a Committee Effectiveness Training 

(C.E.T.) program agenda in module form that will be delivered to the ABGLMC and workforce 

by our Pittsburgh based field mediators. 

As the economies of the world grow ever more interdependent, businesses and labor 

organizations must meet the demanding challenges of the workplace to achieve production 

efficiencies in order to remain competitive. The ABGLMC has built a model partnership 

between Labor, Management, the Community and Government in an effort to meet these 

challenges. 

2. An Ohio School District – Ohio Education Association 

 

 The Ohio school district endured five strikes in the past twenty years. The last 

negotiation resulted in a six-week strike. Prior to contract negotiations, the superintendent 

called FMCS requesting training in interest based (IBB) problem solving. The purpose of the 

training was to begin mediation of disputes prior to the contract’s expiration. Because 

interest based bargaining is a highly collaborative style of negotiations, the mediator was 

skeptical that the process would succeed with these contentious parties. FMCS agreed to 

meet with the union, the members of the Board of Education (BOE), and school 

administrators. 

 In meeting with each group separately, the mediator learned that the parties 

struggled to reverse many issues already covered by the current contract and dealt with in 

prior negotiations. Additionally, there were significant issues that remained unresolved and 

would remain issues in successor contract negotiations. These issues included restructure of 

the health plan and employee contributions, class-size, and inclusion of the classified group 

in the contract. 

FMCS agreed to provide interest based bargaining training, provided that the Board of 

Education participate in the training, and that FMCS would retain the right to re-evaluate the 

appropriateness of IBB for this group at the conclusion of the training. 

The training went well. FMCS facilitated open, honest and focused 

conversation. To ensure the future success of IBB, the FMCS required that 1. all 

Board of Education members participate in all negotiation meetings: 2. FMCS 

would aggressively police any one person or group dominating the process, and 

3. parties limit the number of issues brought to the IBB bargaining table only to 

those significant ones that required resolution at that time. 

The parties agreed. At each meeting they progressively improved their interaction 

with each other and engaged in problem-solving techniques. As a result of this event, FMCS 

received calls from other school districts and labor-management organizations in the area 

seeking these services. 

 
 38

3. State of Iowa / American Federation of State County and Municipal Workers 

 

 The nation’s public employers are no longer insulated from the world’s economy. The 

public sector, including federal, state and municipal government, face productivity problems 

that directly effect their responsiveness and efficiency in the delivery of their services. 

In one of the largest training programs ever conducted in the Midwest, FMCS custom 

designed a labor-management cooperative training program to improve the working 

relationship between the union-represented employees and their supervisors/managers. The 

20,000 State employees are represented by American Federation of State County and 

Municipal Workers (AFSCME) Council 61, in five separate bargaining units. The parties 

believed that improving their day-to-day working relationships would increase productivity and 

service delivery 

This joint labor-management cooperative training program involved training sessions 

for thirty separate Labor-Management Committees. At the request of the parties and 

following the conclusion of the training, six mediators continue to serve as facilitators during 

regular labor-management sessions between the parties at several locations. 

4. An Avenue to Promote Labor-Management Cooperation

 For the past 19 years, FMCS and Northern Kentucky University have joined forces to 

promote labor-management cooperation in the Greater Cincinnati area through an annual 

daylong conference in May of each year. In FY 2000, the conference hosted over 300 

participants. 

The conference highlights labor-management groups that have found ways to develop 

sound working relationships. On-going discussions between the audience and unionmanagement officials provides an open forum to discuss success and failures experienced by 

the presenters. The theme is to encourage management and union officials in the Greater 

Cincinnati area to explore ways to improve their working relationships and enhance their 

competitive edge in the modern global economy. 

5. Kentucky Electric Steel / United Steelworkers of America (USA) /FMCS and Grievance 

Mediation

 Kentucky Electric Steel Inc. (KESI) is a steel mill that produces steel bar flats. The 

flats are used to make springs and trailer parts for the truck industry and other miscellaneous 

markets. Approximately 350 employees are represented by the United Steelworkers of 

America Local 7054. 

KESI and the union have a 30year checkered labor-management history. There were 

several strikes, one that closed the plant operations down for 18 months in 1985. 

 FMCS has been very active with their contract negotiations. We mediated several 

collective bargaining agreements, but the parties wanted more help with their everyday 

problem solving and grievance handling. The company and the union reached out to FMCS 

for assistance in improving their overall labor-management relationship. During their 1998 

negotiations, the parties agreed to start a labor-management committee (LMC) to solve 

ongoing problems utilizing modern dispute resolution techniques. FMCS and the Kentucky 

Labor Cabinet worked together on this project. The Kentucky Labor Cabinet provided grant 

money to assist with the training. FMCS also gave the parties a grant for a continuous 
39

improvement program. According to company officials, the project has the potential of 

saving the company upwards of $500,000. 

 The LMC struggled since its inception partially due to a backlog of 100 grievances. 

Some of the grievances were 3-4 years old. The company argued that many grievances were 

untimely, while the union insisted that they be resolved. FMCS was asked to mediate all 100 

grievances. The Kentucky Labor Cabinet joined in this effort. 

The session started 8:00 a.m. on January 11, 2001. Each grievance was reviewed 

and discussed. Every grievance was mediated with the overall understanding that there was 

no agreement until all the 100 grievances had been mediated. Once the parties had a verbal 

commitment on all 100 grievances, all were reduced to writing. The parties signed the 

handwritten document sometime that evening. Management was pleased with the 

settlement and the union membership supported it as well. 

The FMCS’ grievance mediation process will provide the foundation for a productive 

and effective labor-management relationship in future. 

 

 

 

 
 40

C. Preventive Mediation Program Data 

Preventive Mediation Cases 

Fiscal Years 1996 through 2000 1 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Assigned 2 2,605 2, 404 2,776 2,891 2,782 

Closed by Final Report 3 2,537 2,505 2,813 2.954 2,792 

 

 

Education, Advocacy and Outreach Cases 

Fiscal Years 1996 Through 2000 4 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Assigned 2 3,580 5,472 5,797 5,518 5,504 

Closed by Final Report 3 3,373 5,619 5,932 5,626 5,621 

 

 

1

 Preventive mediation 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. 2

 Cases assigned to a mediator. 

3

 Closed by a Final Report filed by the mediator. 

4

 Education, Advocacy and Outreach involves mediator meeting with various members of the public to discuss and/or explain the 

processes of mediation. 
41

 

 

 

 A. Arbitration Services: 

 

n 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, the 

Service maintains 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. 

The FMCS Office of Arbitration Services maintains a roster of over 1,300 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 panel of potential arbitrators 

from which the parties may select. Panels can be compiled on the basis of geographic 

location, professional affiliation, occupation, experience with particular industries or 

issues, or other criteria specified by the parties. FMCS also furnishes current biographical 

sketches of the arbitrator 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 users focus group, which reviews and 

makes recommendations to the FMCS Director on changes in Arbitration Service policies 

and procedures. 

B. FMCS’ Arbitrators’ Symposia: 

 

One of the lesser-known FMCS activities is the Arbitrator Symposium. It has been 

held annually since the 1970’s in Cleveland, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Seattle. 

The Symposium gives the 1,300 FMCS Roster Arbitrators the opportunity to meet 

once a year to discuss and share the latest information about their profession. Sixty to eighty 

arbitrators, drawn from Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, usually attend 

the Ohio Symposium. The presenters are usually arbitrators themselves as well as the 

Director of FMCS’ Arbitration Services. Planning and moderating the event rests with the 

senior commissioner of the FMCS Cleveland Field Office. 

The Symposium has received consistently high marks for all aspects of its activities. 

Those attending look forward to it because it is one of the few opportunities for them to share 

ideas and information. 

I
 42

A modest registration fee, to date under $100.00, covers the expenses. Attendees' 

pay for their rooms and speakers only receive a free registration to the Symposium. 


43

C. Arbitration Services Program Data 

Number of Panel Requests, Panels Submitted and Arbitrator Appointments Fiscal Years 1996 Through 2000 

Activity 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 

Panel Requests 25,827 27,385 17,357 17,514 16,976 

Panels Issued 1 30,697 30,066 31,295 19,062 19,485 

Arbitrators Appointed 11,593 10,102 10,391 8,984 9,561 

 

Activity Charged For 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Travel Days .43 .40 .34 .41 .51 

Hearing Days 1.13 1.10 1.23 1.20 1.18 

Study Days 2.43 2.33 2.30 2.38 2.58 

Total 3.98 3.86 3.74 4.02 4.27 

 

Charges 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Per Diem Rate 570.67 591.00 598.50 641.49 672.12 

Amount of Fee 2,327.94 2,421.00 2,296.46 2,592.00 2863.49 

Amount of Expenses 245.80 253.00 252.00 248.92 321.67 

Total Charged 2,537.73 2,674.00 2,548.46 2,840.92 3185.16 

 

1

 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. 
 44

Total Number of Issues 

And Specific Issues 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 

Total 3,961 2,034 2,132 2,132 2,723 

 

General Issues 846 779 409 391 585 

 Overtime Other Than Pay*

 

 Distribution of Overtime 73 63 36 30 48 

 Compulsory Overtime 12 12 4 8 12 

 Other Overtime 14 20 17 15 18 

Seniority 

 Promotion & Upgrading 143 108 49 42 86 

 Layoff Bumping & Recall 130 129 52 48 65 

 Transfer 44 45 22 13 16 

 Other Seniority 65 63 31 33 38 

 Union Officers** 15 16 6 4 12 

 Strike & Lockout 4 5 2 2 4 

 Working Conditions*** 21 35 15 19 35 

 Discrimination 22 28 12 21 27 

 Management Rights 81 77 37 49 75 

 Scheduling of Work 82 40 49 45 50 

 Work Assignments 140 138 77 62 99 

 

Economic Wage Rates & Pay Issues 391 409 231 239 298 

 Wage Issues 53 69 39 46 32 

 Rate of Pay 99 91 48 65 75 

 Severance Pay 3 13 7 6 5 

 Reporting, Call- in & Call-back Pay 12 13 6 10 12 

 Holidays & Holiday Pay 42 40 34 15 33 

 Vacations & Vacation Pay 70 74 36 31 54 

 Incentive Rates & Standards 18 15 12 17 25 

 Overtime Pay 94 94 49 49 62 

 

Fringe Benefits Issues 131 110 81 63 100 

 Health & Welfare 63 40 35 27 58 

 Pensions 14 18 15 6 14 

 Other Fringe Issues 54 52 31 30 28 

 

Discharge & Disciplinary Issues 1,916 1,941 1,032 1004 1203 

Technical Issues 189 163 79 102 139 

 Job Posting & Bidding 64 58 38 36 52 

 Job Evaluation 38 30 18 24 28 

 Job Classification 87 75 23 42 59 

Scope of Agreement 122 120 78 61 74 

 Subcontracting 87 79 54 40 48 

 Jurisdictional Disputes 14 25 15 10 16 

 Foreman, Supervision, etc. 17 13 5 7 5 

 Mergers, Consolidations, Accretion, Other Plants 4 3 4 4 5 

 

*

 Overtime pay issues included under this category Economic: Wage Rates and Pay Issues. ** Included in this classification are issues concerning super seniority and union business. 

*** This classification also includes issues concerning safety. 
45

Arbitrability of Grievances 178 99 81 146 193 

 Procedural 46 29 43 98 120 

 Substantive 108 59 29 35 42 

 Procedural & Substantive 24 11 9 13 24 

 Other Arbitrability Questions 0 0 0 0 7 

Not Elsewhere Classified 188 166 43 126 131 

Total Number of Cases 

State & Region 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 

Mountain 175 174 97 142 85 

 Arizona 25 21 8 9 15 

 Colorado 61 66 30 47 28 

 Idaho 11 10 4 6 3 

 Montana 14 20 14 8 11 

 Nevada 16 11 13 30 12 

 New Mexico 30 34 18 35 11 

 Utah 9 11 7 5 4 

 Wyoming 9 1 3 2 1 

 

Pacific 290 269 150 153 128 

 Alaska 9 13 6 8 6 

 California 174 138 56 86 59 

 Hawaii 5 4 0 2 2 

 Oregon 22 37 34 17 32 

 Washington 80 77 54 40 29 

 

Miscellaneous 34 7 7 9 16 

 Philippines 0 0 0 0 0 

 Puerto Rico 6 3 2 2 4 

 Virgin Islands 14 3 1 4 4 

 Guam 2 0 0 0 0 

 Others 12 1 4 3 8 

 

New England 82 54 34 20 29 

 Connecticut 9 10 4 5 10 

 Maine 13 6 10 2 2 

 Massachusetts 35 23 11 9 11 

 New Hampshire 6 3 3 2 0 

 Rhode Island 2 5 1 1 0 

 Vermont 17 7 5 1 6 

 

Middle Atlantic 475 457 567 233 289 

 New Jersey 51 39 20 31 22 

 New York 148 178 81 95 111 

 Pennsylvania 276 240 233 107 156 

South Atlantic 597 591 288 285 349 

 Delaware 3 3 5 4 6 

 District of Columbia 65 50 20 53 31 

 Florida 169 170 98 55 92 

 Georgia 110 102 35 25 51 

 Maryland 80 79 32 48 35 

 North Carolina 44 41 17 7 21 

 South Carolina 11 18 15 8 15 

 
 46

Total Number of Cases 

State & Region 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

 Virginia 61 55 32 47 56 

 West Virginia 54 73 34 38 42 

 

East North Central 1,474 1,219 790 673 866 

 Illinois 358 318 127 207 191 

 Indiana 200 156 101 71 67 

 Michigan 303 250 159 187 190 

 Ohio 512 381 343 154 338 

 Wisconsin 101 114 60 54 80 

 

West North Central 498 476 408 222 316 

 Iowa 99 99 88 49 61 

 Kansas 59 57 36 27 32 

 Minnesota 126 1ll 103 40 90 

 Missouri 180 170 148 85 101 

 Nebraska 16 22 19 16 17 

 North Dakota 13 5 10 1 5 

 South Dakota 5 12 4 4 10 

East South Central 370 316 191 118 236 

 Alabama 98 111 57 23 53 

 Kentucky 108 69 49 35 70 

 Mississippi 29 38 16 9 17 

 Tennessee 135 98 69 51 96 

 

West South Central 420 393 207 110 227 

 Arkansas 48 64 30 11 35 

 Louisiana 61 36 21 9 28 

 Oklahoma 88 77 69 26 68 

 Texas 223 216 87 64 96 

Totals 4,515 3,956 2,506 1,965 2507 

 

 

 
47

 

A. Grants Program: 

MCS 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. 

Since 1981, FMCS has awarded $18.9-million in grants to 303 applicants for the 

establishment or continuation of joint committees that propose innovative approaches to 

labor-management cooperation. These committees, established on a plant, area or 

industry-wide basis, unite representatives of management and employee unions on a 

regular basis, and are effective vehicles for increasing productivity, improving product 

quality and resolving workplace issues. In recent years, they have addressed issues such 

as health care cost containment solutions, competitiveness of a region’s hotel industry, 

economic development, and public sector quality management. 

 In Fiscal Year 2000, the 20 grants recipients (15 new and 5 continuation) were 

selected from 63 applicants requesting more than $7 million in funding. An independent 

FMCS Grants Review Board, chaired by the Director of Labor-Management Grants, does 

preliminary scoring of each application. The winners represented approximately 1.6 million 

employees in both the public and private sector. Final selection is made by the program 

director. 

 FMCS conducted the tenth biennial National Labor-Management Conference in 

Chicago in April 2000. It attracted 2,400 individuals seeking information on successful 

labor-management cooperation and advice on barriers to overcome in achieving success. 

 A 1998 the study of the FMCS Labor-Management Cooperation Program, conducted 

by the Tennessee Center for Labor-Management Relations determined that 71.4% of the 

Labor-Management Committees established through the FMCS grants program continued to 

operate with independent funding after the grant period. Researchers analyzed data from the 

case files of 200 labor-management committees established through FMCS grants and 

concluded that as many as 20-million workers were directly or indirectly affected by the 

achievements of the 200 Labor-Management Committees created with FMCS grants. 

F
 48

B. Fiscal Year 2000 Grant Funding Summary 

Industry Committees 

 

National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice/UFCW/AFSCME/SEIU (Chicago, IL)

$125,000 to establish a national committee dealing with labor-management relations in religious 

health care settings. 

Sheet Metal Industry Advancement Committee/Sheet Metal Workers (Philadelphia, PA)

$75,000 to expand cooperative efforts to increase productivity and reduce costs. 

COUNT Program (Towson, MD)

$100,000 to promote Best Value Contracting (BVC) in the construction industry. 

IBEW Local 99/ Various Electrical Contractors (Cranston, RI)

$98,000 to promote interest in electrical construction careers among young persons and minorities 

to deal with skilled worker shortages. 

Centralized Safety Training Data Base, Inc. (Concord, CA)

$100,000 to expand the concept of a unified and centralized safety training database for 

construction workers throughout the State of California. 

Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund (Pomfret Center, CT)

 $125,000 to employ the Technology Assisted Group Solutions system in joint development of a 

strategic plan. 

National Alliance for Fair Contracting

$75,000 to expand, on nationwide basis, the efforts to promote fair contracting practices in public 

construction projects. 

Plant Committees 

Atlantic Baking Group/BCTWU/IUOE (Pittsburgh, PA)

$65,000 to improve plant competitiveness by enhancing the involvement of workers in making 

decisions that affect their working lives. 

Kentucky Electric Steel/USWA Local 7054 (Ashland, KY)

$43,450 to expand a continuous improvement system to lower costs and increase productivity. 

Columbia Gas of PA and MD/UWUA/USWA (Pittsburgh, PA)

$64,350 to jointly implement qualification standards for individuals performing covered tasks on 

pipeline facilities. 

Area Committees 

The Area Labor-Management Cooperative Council of East Central Ohio (Zanesville, OH)

$100,000 to create an Appalachian Center for Collaborative and Engaged Learning to help reduce 

the area’s skilled worker shortage. 
49

Public Sector Committees 

 

Riverside County/LIUNA/SEIU (Riverside, CA)

$125,000 to develop methods to attract and retain staff to service information technology needs. 

University of Michigan/Michigan State/AFSCME (Ann Arbor, MI)

$44,181 to decrease conflict inherent in the grievance process by improving problem solving skills 

and the grievance process itself. 

CSEA/County Nursing Facilities of New York (Albany, NY)

 $73,027 to explore innovative approaches to the recruitment, retention and staffing problems faced 

by public nursing homes in New York State. 

Public Employment Relations Board/IA State Education Assn./IA Assn. Of School Boards 

(Des Moines, IA)

$108,381 to form statewide public education committee to coordinate interest-based problem 

solving and negotiation skills training in at least ten school districts. 

South Colonie School District/CSEA-NEA (Albany, NY)

 $20,176 to develop a grievance mediation process involving internal mediators. 

Detroit Public Schools/AFT and other unions (Detroit, MI)

 $111,987 to establish a district-wide committee that will support department and school based 

problem-solving teams and committees. 
 50

 

A. Purpose and Course Offering: 

ducation and training in labor relations and conflict resolution are an integral part of 

the Agency’s mission for more than half a century. Fiscal Year 1999 was the inaugural 

year for the FMCS Institute, offering 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 Service's traditional, site-based Preventive Mediation 

programs. 

The FMCS Institute offers training in practical conflict resolution skills, and provides 

participants the opportunity to interact with and learn from experienced practitioners who use 

these skills every day. Federal mediators are the largest, most experienced cadre of 

professional conflict resolution managers. 

 The FMCS Institute offers a variety of skills training and education in conflict 

management and resolution, aimed at improving relationships between labor and 

management. The institute was established to respond to the changing needs of modern 

collective bargaining, providing essential training in meeting the challenges of labormanagement relations and organizational change. The following course offerings were held 

in East, West and Central locations in FY 2000. 

• Labor Arbitrator Training-comprehensive skills training and education for 

experienced labor-management practitioners desiring to become labor arbitrators. A 

team of FMCS mediators taught the course with members of the National Academy of 

Arbitrators. This training provides FMCS a continued cadre of trained, experience 

dispute resolution professionals prepared to provide arbitration services to the 

nation's collective bargaining community

• Cross Cultural Competencies-The global marketplace, technological innovations and 

changing values have made the workplace increasingly more competitive, 

demanding, stressful and complex. Add to this the rapidly changing demographics 

reflecting more women and immigrant workers, and conflict in the workplace 

becomes inevitable. With the right approach, diversity can be harnessed to enhance 

innovation, productivity and employee morale.

• Negotiations...A 21st Century Tool for Success-A dynamic and interactive negotiation 

workshop focused on best practices and techniques needed for the 21st century 

contract negotiations, problem solving, grievance handling, EEO matters and labormanagement disputes. 

E
51

• Facilitation Skills Training-Provides participants the tools and techniques to conduct 

successful meetings and guide creative problem solving, conflict management and 

negotiations. 

• Mediation Skills for Workplace Disputes-Dealing effectively with conflict in the 

workplace has become a critical function in public and private organizations. 

Employers and employees are increasingly turning toward mediation as a way of 

resolving workplace related conflict to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.

• Facilitating Multi-Party Disputes-The use of third parties in mediating and facilitating 

multi-party disputes such as public policy, regulatory and environmental issues is 

becoming increasingly common. Since the early 1980s, FMCS has facilitated dozens 

of negotiated rulemakings, environmental and other multi-party issues, and has 

become the leader in the field of mediating /facilitating multi-party disputes and 

negotiated rulemaking. Extending this knowledge to others fulfills an agency mission 

to develop the art, science and practice of conflict resolution.

Fees received for delivery of training services fund the FMCS 

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. Eleven training courses are 

planned for FY 2001. 

 
 52

*Alternative Dispute Resolution 

A. Services Provided: 

uthorized by the Administrative Dispute Resolution and Negotiated Rulemaking Acts of 

1990, both permanently reauthorized in 1996, FMCS offers a range of Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) to agencies of government. These range from mediation, 

conflict resolution systems design, education, training and mentoring, to the facilitation of 

multi-party regulatory, environmental and public policy negotiations. All these services 

provide 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. 

ADR SERVICES TO CLIENTS 

Consultation: Initial assessment of a client agency’s needs. 

System Design: Analysis of existing mechanisms and design of appropriate methods and 

strategies for implementing ADR. 

Education, Training, Mentoring: Programs for educating the general user of ADR 

Services, training in mediation skills for potential mediators, and actual mentoring of mediator 

trainees through active cases. 

Mediation/Facilitation and Convening Services: Available on contract to agencies to 

provide mediation, facilitation and convening services for all types of disputes, depending on 

FMCS resource availability. 

Evaluation and Follow-up: Assessment of ADR programs and continuing involvement to 

improve ADR initiatives. 

 

A
53

1. Domestic Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

FMCS concluded nearly 800 ADR cases for numerous governmental agencies in fiscal 

year 2000, providing consultation, systems design, training, mediation or facilitation, 

mentoring/co-mediation, as well as follow-up and program evaluation. FMCS continued its 

delivery of mediation services under two interagency agreements with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC), one agreement for “external” complaints from citizens filing 

discrimination charges against their employer or an organization, the other agreement was 

for “internal” complaints filed by EEOC employees against the Commission itself. Due to EEOC 

budgetary constraints, FMCS handled a limited number of these cases in FY 2000, in 

contrast to the 160 cases mediated in FY 1999. For Fiscal Year 2001, another national 

agreement was signed. The United States Postal Service “Redress Program” had FMCS 

mediate 300 cases in FY 2000. 

FMCS mediators continue to mediate work place and discrimination complaints for 

numerous federal agencies including: Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Navy Immigration 

& Naturalization Service, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Personnel 

Management, and the Peace Corps. We have had an exclusive agreement with Health & 

Human Services (HHS) since 1980 to mediate age discrimination complaints under the Age 

Discrimination Act of 1975, for federally funded institutions. Over 125 cases, coordinated 

through Departments of Labor, Agriculture, Education, Housing of Urban Development (HUD), 

HHS and Veterans Affairs were mediated during FY 2000. 

2. U.S. Department of Labor-Solicitor’s Office Project 

Early in fiscal year 2000, the Department of Labor (DOL) contacted the FMCS 

National Office requesting ADR Training for the DOL’S 400 plus Solicitors. Solicitors are the 

Department’s attorneys responsible for the Agency’s enforcement litigation pertaining to 

approximately 130 employment law statutes. The program design was referred to the DOL’s 

Chicago Regional Solicitor’s Office. 

The goals for the program, as defined by the DOL, were: (1) to provide an overview of 

ADR legislative history, (2) to define various ADR techniques with a focus on mediation, 

including distinguishing mediation from early neutral evaluation and, (3) to offer Solicitor’s 

Office Attorneys a practical experience as litigation advocates in the mediation process. 

Following several planning sessions, a prototype was developed to meet these goals. An 

additional mediation and advocacy ethics component was added later. An initial full day pilot 

in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin led to an expansion of the program to four additional regional 

conferences requiring the assistance of additional FMCS mediators. 

The conference was devoted to realistic mediation simulations involving employment 

law enforced by the Department of Labor including OSHA, FLSA, ERISA, OFCCP, and MSHA. 

Following each session, participating solicitors reported that the time spent in mediation was 

proved to be a valuable learning experience as DOL Solicitors prepare for judicial 

requirements to use alternative dispute resolution. The opportunity also proved to be a 

valuable learning experience for FMCS commissioners highlighting the complex and 

important enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Labor as well as the diverse and 

expanding roles of FMCS mediators. 

 

3. Bureau of Public Debt-U.S. Treasury / National Treasury Employees Union

 
 54

 The FMCS Parkersburg, West Virginia, field office had a long and successful 

association with the U.S. Treasury’s Bureau of Public Debt (BPD) and the NTEU. The 

relationship began decades ago when Congress allowed Federal employees to organize and 

join unions. 

 

The relationship had not expanded into the Equal Employment Opportunity arena until 

FMCS West Virginia commissioner contacted BPD two years ago, and explained FMCS ability 

to conduct EEO/ADR mediation sessions. So far in FY 2001, FMCS has completed four (4) 

EEO/ADR cases and FMCS has earned the reputation as the sole provider for this service at 

BPD. The mediation of EEO disputes saves the Treasury Bureau time and money, as well as 

serving management, labor and employees by properly handling an EEO complaint in an 

efficient and timely manner 

4. Regulatory Negotiations: 

Authorized by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, FMCS offers 

government regulatory and enforcement agencies a better way to formulate new rules and 

regulations. In the traditional rulemaking process, agency personnel draft new regulations 

with little or no outside input, publish the draft regulation in the Federal Register for the 

required public comment period, and then await criticism, or legal challenges, from those 

affected by the new regulation. 

In contrast, FMCS convenes and facilitates Regulatory Negotiations, a process in 

which those affected by a regulation jointly draft a proposed rule or regulation by consensus. 

Early involvement by potential antagonists allows the agency to resolve its problems by 

working together with the agency’s stakeholders. The result is better regulation because 

those facing regulation took an active role in the process. In addition, subsequent court 

challenges are greatly reduced. 

Under the authority of the 1996 Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the FMCS 

assists federal and state agencies by convening and mediating regulatory negotiations as well 

as less formal, public policy dialogues. FMCS completed five major multi-party negotiations 

during FY 2000 and is currently engaged in three new multi-party negotiations thus far in FY 

2001. It is certain that the use of negotiated rulemaking and other highly interactive 

negotiating models will be a constructive way to diminish litigation and enhance relationships 

with constituencies. A program of note, designed under HUD’s Hope VI project, involves a 

community revitalization effort, consulting with residents on issues of design, safety, 

qualifications of returning residents, job training and education. FMCS provided training in the 

areas of communication, mediation, problem solving and meeting planning. The Service also 

provided extensive problem solving workshops at three sites under this program. 

5. U. S. Government Regulatory Negotiations: 

 

 FMCS was engaged in regulatory negotiations for the following agencies in FY 2000: 

 U. S. Department of Labor, to deal with pension fund issues; 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Transportation, to deal with highway 

right-of-way and construction on Native American reservation lands; 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Care Financing Administration, to 

establish a structure for ambulance fees; and 
55

Department of Housing and Urban Development, to create a Housing Operating 

Fund. 

6. Non-federal ADR: 

FMCS also provides assistance to state and local governments and their agencies, as 

part of its reimbursable ADR services. Frequently, when FMCS develops a relationship with 

local governments in one area of service, it leads to a proliferation of activities within that 

level of government, with other nearby local governments, and with non-governmental 

organizations in the area who become aware of FMCS. 

7. International Dispute Resolution, Education and Training: 

 

In Fiscal Year 1998, FMCS consolidated the offices of ADR Services and International 

Affairs into ADR/International Services, combining limited resources to allow greater focus on 

each area, and to establish a third area of service: International ADR. 

FMCS is responding to increasing requests for conflict resolution services outside the 

traditional domestic labor-management. It is adapting the same skills and processes 

provided here to friendly foreign governments and organizations. Briefing sessions for foreign 

union and management officials familiarize them with U.S. labor-management history, laws, 

and practice enabling them to more fully understand how American industry and its workers 

function in today’s economy. 

The International ADR Team developed a program plan, outlining specific services, 

potential venues for those services and possible funding sources. Since FMCS receives no 

appropriated funds for its ADR or International programs, mediator salaries and expenses are 

reimbursed through such entities as the Department of State, The United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID) and the United States Institute of Peace. 

 

 FMCS continued to respond to requests for International Labor training and technical 

assistance from all parts of the world during FY 2000 including Indonesia, South American 

countries, and Panama. We also continue to provide labor attaché training for Foreign 

Service officers working for U.S. Department of State overseas. 

(a). Indonesia 

 An FMCS mediator worked on an extensive project in partnership with a nongovernmental agency to strengthen Indonesia’s capacity to manage inter-group conflicts by: 

(1) addressing underlying causes of conflict; and (2) reflecting the needs, values and 

interests of the conflicting parties. 

 

(b). South American Countries: 

 The Organization of American States (OAS) has provided South American countries 

with a grant to train mediators in the MERCOSUR (Southern Cone Common MarketArgentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay) nations. In FY 2000, FMCS has conducted 

training programs in both Argentina and Brazil. Plans for the continuation of this training for 

the other nations in the region are under way. 

 
 56

 The International Labor Organization (ILO) funded a one-week mediation-training 

program for Brazilian Ministry prosecutors in employment cases. The program offered an 

overview of dispute resolution techniques and practical exercises to resolve employment law 

disputes. 

(c). Panama 

 

 An ongoing relationship with the Republic of Panama was continued in FY 2000. 

FMCS furnished a variety of services to the United States Panama Canal Commission, the 

Panama Canal Authority (ACP) and the Republic of Panama in preparation for the December 

1999 transfer of the Canal and post-transition issues. Federal mediators conducted 

extensive labor-management and collective bargaining training in preparation for the hand 

over. 

 The Agency completed an extensive system design project for the Republic of 

Panama funded by the Agency for International Development. This project provided for the 

establishment of a sustainable and independent mediation system for the Panama Canal as 

well as other labor-management disputes in Panama. 

 

(d). Labor Attaché Training: 

 FMCS continues its long-standing service for the U. S. Department of State, providing 

briefings and training for Foreign Service officers assigned overseas to serve as United States 

labor attachés, and for government, business and labor leaders from other countries who 

visit the United States. 

 

 
57

The functions and responsibilities of each office within FMCS are set forth below: 

 Office of the Director

The Director, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, 

is responsible for establishment of policy and overall administration of the Service. The 

Director serves as agency liaison with the White House, members of the President’s Cabinet, 

Congress, and major labor and management customers, while providing direction for, and 

participating in, the mediation of major disputes and preventive mediation cases. 

The Executive Assistant to the Director assists the Director in the administration of 

his duties, has overall responsibility for the coordination of meetings and events involving the 

Director and represents the Director in many National Office activities, such as the National 

Office Partnership Council. 

The National Representative functions as a representative of FMCS and the Director 

on assignments with national significance and as an agency spokesperson in various private 

and public sector, and international labor-management forums. This person also serves as 

an advisor on technical and administrative operations of the Service and assists in selected 

significant mediation activities and national disputes. 

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal support and advice necessary for 

the Service to carry out its mission. Working with the Department of Justice, the office 

represents the agency in proceedings before the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office 

of the Special Counsel, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority, and other administrative bodies. This office is also responsible for the 

agency’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. 
 58

Office of the Deputy Director 

 

 The Deputy Director is responsible for assisting the Director in all aspects of 

management of the Service’s five regions, 71 field offices and 195 mediators. The Deputy 

Director participates in the mediation of labor disputes of national scope and significance when 

necessary. The Deputy Director is responsible for the operation and implementation of FMCS 

policies and procedures for dispute mediation and preventive mediation activities and serves 

as the principal operations officer in the internal administration of the Service, responsible for 

managing the daily operations and implementing policies for the program and support 

functions of the National Office. 

The Deputy Director serves as an advisor to the Director in the establishment of policy, 

and represents the Director in a variety of forums with the White House, the President’s 

cabinet, the Congress, leaders of labor and management, and federal, state and local 

government officials. 

 The Designated Agency Ethics Officer is responsible for assuring high ethical 

standards by all FMCS employees, and for preventing any financial conflicts of interest, or the 

appearance of conflict by FMCS personnel. This office manages the agency’s Ethics program, 

which includes annual ethics training for all employees, and oversight of all required financial 

reporting by certain FMCS personnel. 

 

National Office Departments 

 

 The Office of Arbitration Services provides the labor-management community, upon 

request, with “panels” of highly qualified arbitrators to settle disputes arising during the life of 

labor contracts. This office maintains a computerized roster more than 1,350 qualified, private 

sector arbitrators. 

The Office of Budget and Finance develops budget estimates and supporting material 

to cover the financial needs of the Service, coordinates and assists in the presentation of the 

budget to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Congress, and ensures that 

enacted appropriations are properly executed. The office also provides an integrated system of 

accounting controls, records, and reports to meet management’s needs and ensure 

compliance with applicable laws. 

The Office of Education and Training develops educational and training curricula for 

FMCS Preventive Mediation programs, and oversees all training and professional development 

functions for FMCS leadership, mediators and staff, including the assessment of staff training 

needs and the coordination of training programs. 
59

 

 The Office of Human Resources is responsible for providing human resource programs 

to meet management’s needs and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

Major programs include hiring of qualified employees, classification of all positions, 

implementation and monitoring of appraisal systems, and coordination of employee relations 

programs. 

The Office of Information Systems and Administration provides a full range of 

administrative support functions to the National Office in Washington, D.C. and the seventy one 

field locations throughout the country. These services include procurement, contracting, 

supply, office space, mail services, records management, printing and distribution, desktop 

publishing, communications and transportation management, building security, and 

maintenance. This office is also responsible for the Service’s automated data processing 

support with the major focus on systems that handle case processing and reporting. 

The Office of International and Dispute Resolution Services is responsible for 

International Domestic Alternative Dispute Resolution, International Labor and International 

Dispute Resolution activities and projects, coordinating the provision of conflict resolution 

services with other government agencies, including joint problem-solving approaches used in 

lieu of agency adjudication, courtroom litigation and traditional government rulemaking. This 

office also coordinates programs with sponsoring organizations that send FMCS mediators 

abroad and bring delegations from other countries to FMCS Headquarters. 

 The Office of Programs and Labor-Management Grants administers the FMCS 

program for labor-management grants, supporting the establishment and operation of plant, 

area, and industry wide joint labor-management committees, and coordinating the National 

Labor-Management Conference. 

 

 FMCS Field Organization 

 

 Leadership Teams in each of the Service’s five geographic regions are comprised of a 

Regional Director and two Directors of Mediation Services, who report to the Regional 

Director and each work hands-on with approximately twenty mediators. 

 Mediators are the largest group of employees. They provide services to the agency’s 

customers, mediating disputes in the negotiation of collective bargaining contracts, and 

training in cooperative skills and processes as part of Preventive Mediation services. To be 

selected as a mediator, they must have extensive experience and knowledge of collective 

bargaining and a strong commitment to become proficient in the delivery of all FMCS services. 

Their knowledge of labor-management relations and the collective bargaining process is key to 

their ability to assist and influence bargainers in settling their differences. 

 
 60

 

he Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was established by Title II of the 

Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley) in 1947 as an independent agency 

whose mission is to prevent and minimize labor-management disputes affecting 

interstate commerce by providing mediation, conciliation, and voluntary arbitration. That 

primary duty remains unchanged. All mediation and conciliation functions of the Secretary 

of Labor and the United States Conciliation Service were transferred to FMCS at that time. 

Its independence and neutrality were highlighted by the Act’s legislative command that 

“The Director and the Service shall not be subject in any way to the jurisdiction or authority 

of the Secretary of Labor or any official or division of the Department of Labor.” The FMCS 

mission includes both the private and public sectors, except for the railroad and airline 

industries, which are covered by the Railway Labor Act and the National Mediation Board. 

 

In 1990, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Act authorized the agency to assist other Federal agencies in resolving disputes arising out 

of grants, contracts, licenses, or other agency rules, regulations or administrative actions, 

and to assist in the process of negotiated rulemaking. The Administrative Dispute 

Resolution Act of 1996 amended and permanently reenacted these 1990 Acts. 

The National Performance Review recommended creation of the National Partnership 

Council to promote the formation of labor-management partnerships in the Federal 

government as a way of reforming government. On October 1, 1993, the President issued 

Executive Order 12871 directing the formation of the Council and naming the Director of 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service as one of its eleven principal members. The 

Executive Order directed Federal agencies to provide systematic training of federal employees 

in Alternate Dispute Resolution techniques and interest based bargaining approaches, and 

named FMCS a training source. FMCS has continued its mediation and other services 

available to federal sector parties in an effort to avoid costly litigation and adversarial 

disputes. 

Over the years, Congress and the Executive Branch have authorized FMCS to perform a 

variety of dispute resolution functions as well as to assist in collective bargaining disputes and 

the improvement of labor-management relationships. Specific statutory and other 

authorizations of agency programs are described below. 

T 
61

The Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (Public Law 80-101, 29 U.S.C. See. 173) 

directs the Service to prevent or minimize interruptions of the free flow of commerce 

growing out of labor disputes by helping the parties settle such disputes through 

mediation. Parties are required to notify the Service 30 days prior to a contract termination 

or modification date so that mediation services may be proffered. 

The Act establishes a special procedure for threatened or actual strikes which in the 

opinion of the President imperil the national health or safety. In such a situation, the 

President may appoint a board of inquiry to ascertain the facts with respect to the dispute. 

After receipt of the report, the President may seek to enjoin the strike for not more than 80 

days, and a court may do so if it finds that the threatened or actual strike or lockout affects 

a substantial part or all of an industry and would imperil the national health or safety. 

The Health Care Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-360, 29 U.S.C. See. 158(d) 

(amending the National Labor Relations Act) include special responsibilities to prevent or 

minimize work stoppages in the health care industry. In the case of this industry, FMCS 

must be notified 60 days before the contract termination date. A 30 day notice is required 

in initial bargaining situations. If, in the opinion of the Director, a strike is threatened which 

would interrupt the delivery of health care in a locality, the Director may appoint a board of 

inquiry (29 U.S.C. section 183). The board has 15 days within which to operate and file its 

report and recommendations; parties must maintain the status quo for 15 days thereafter 

while further negotiations and mediation take place. The parties are required to cooperate 

in any mediation efforts by FMCS. 

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-454, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7119) directs 

the Service to provide mediation assistance and services in disputes arising from 

negotiations between Federal agencies and the exclusive representatives of their 

employees. 

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-375,39 U.S.C. Sec. 1207) 

requires the Service to establish fact-finding panels and arbitration 

boards if disputes between the Postal Service and the exclusive representatives of its 

employees are not resolved prior to certain statutory deadlines. 

Presidential Statement, March 24,1953. President Eisenhower established the Atomic 

Energy Labor-Management Relations Panel within the Service in March 1953, in order to 

ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the Atomic Energy Program without strikes or 

lockouts due to labor-management disputes. This Panel was moved to the Atomic Energy 

Commission in March 1956 but was returned to FMCS under President Carter in April 

1980 and renamed the Energy Labor-Management Relations Panel (ELMRP). 

Executive Order 11374, dated October 11, 1967, transferred the responsibilities of the 

Missile Sites Labor Commission (created by Executive Order 10946) to FMCS. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-396, 7 

U.S.C. 136a(c)(f)(ii)) requires the Service to provide for the appointment of arbitrators to 

decide disputes concerning compensation for the use or development of pesticide 

registration data. 

The Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-524, 29 U.S.C. 175a) 

amended sections 175 and 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act and authorizes 
 62

and directs the Service to encourage and support joint labor-management activities 

conducted by plant, area, and industry-wide committees designed to improve 

labor-management relationships, employment security, and organizational effectiveness. 

The Act authorizes the Service to provide grant funds to assist in the establishment and 

operation of these labor-management committees. 

 

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-320) 5 U.S.C., 571, 

et seq. authorizes and encourages agencies to use various alternative means of dispute 

resolution in the federal administrative process in order to avoid the time and expense of 

litigation. The 1996 Act amended and permanently reenacted the Administrative Dispute 

Resolution Act of 1990 as well as the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. The repeal of 

the sunset date (expiration dates) and the reporting requirements of the Acts suggest that 

the ADR and regulatory-negotiation "experiments" have become well accepted processes 

of Federal agencies. 

A lead agency or interagency committee will be designated by the President to 

facilitate and encourage use of alternative dispute resolution. Federal agencies are now 

required to consult with that lead agency or committee and are now permitted to 

participate in binding arbitration in some situations. Under the 1996 Act, coverage has 

been expanded to include additional dispute resolution techniques, such as "ombudsmen," 

and the use of ADR in some workplace conflicts, including Hatch Act violations, retirement, 

insurance, certain suspensions, removals, examinations and appointments. The 1996 Act 

directs FMCS to develop guidelines to expedite the acquisition of neutrals and to 

encourage use of alternative dispute resolution in the Federal government. Lastly, this 

legislation amends the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley) by 

permanently adding section 173(f) of Title 29 of the United States Code so that FMCS may 

provide all forms of ADR assistance to Federal agencies. Under this legislation, FMCS 

continues to assist agencies in negotiated rulemaking processes as well as other ADR 

procedures by providing training, facilitation, mediation, and other neutral skills. 

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 90.43, issued by the Department of 

Health and Human Services, implementing its authority under the Age Discrimination Act 

of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6 101 et seq., authorizes the Service to provide mediation assistance 

for the resolution of age discrimination charges. 

Executive Order 12871, dated October 1, 1993, established the National Partnership 

Council in the federal sector to foster a new form of labor-management relations 

throughout the executive branch and promote the principles and recommendations of the 

National Performance Review. The Director of FMCS serves as a member of this Council. 

The goal is to foster good government through the formation of labor-management 

partnerships. 

Executive Order 13062, dated September 29, 1997, extends the National Partnership 

Council in the federal sector for two more years and continues the FMCS role. 

The Air Traffic Management Performance Improvement Act of 1996 (Public Law 

104-264, 49 U.S.C. Section 40122, directs the FMCS to mediate disputes between the 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and its employee representatives if 

these bargaining parties fail to reach a negotiated agreement. 
63

2000finaldraft 4-13-01