Opinion ID: 2328860
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Course of the Collective BargainingNegotiation, Mediation, Arbitration.

Text: On June 24, 1986, the two locals to which we refer as the Union were jointly certified by the PERB as the exclusive bargaining agent for public school employees in five bargaining units. [2] The School Board and the Union agreed to binding interest arbitration of all unresolved items. From June 1987 to February 1988, the parties engaged in extensive negotiation sessions, but were unable to resolve their differences. On March 2, 1988, at the Union's request, the PERB initiated its impasse resolution procedures and appointed a mediator. The mediator, however, was unable to settle the dispute. The Union then requested arbitration, and an arbitral panel was designated to resolve the impasse and render an award. The panel included an impartial Chairman, a Management-appointed member, and a Union-appointed member. On June 21, 1988, the parties submitted a list of open issues to the arbitral panel for resolution. The School Board claims that, during the course of the arbitration, its representatives declared that nine of the Union's contract proposals would infringe on rights reserved to management and therefore were not proper subjects of collective bargaining. [3] The Union contends, on the other hand, that the School Board made no sufficient objection to the negotiability of these issues and, in fact, bargained as to each of them. On September 30, 1988, the arbitral panel entered an award disposing of all issues, including those as to which the School Board now claims to have made a sufficient timely objection. This award was signed by all three members of the panel. On October 14, 1988, the impartial Chairman issued a draft opinion to which he attached a list of the contested items, and in which he stated that the award would be implemented only if the PERB determined that these items were negotiable. On November 7, 1988, however, the Chairman issued a final opinion in which he omitted the reference to the PERB or to the award being partly conditional, and stated only that [s]everal of the Union's proposals were declared by Management to be non-negotiable. The Union disagreed with Management's determinations. In light of these developments, the parties were unable to determine whether the panel viewed its entire award as final, or whether the contested provisions would be enforceable only if they were subsequently determined by the PERB to fall within the proper scope of collective bargaining. Accordingly, in July 1989, the School Board and the Union jointly sought an explanation of the opinion from the Chairman. The parties inquired whether and under what circumstances the items as to which the School Board was now contesting negotiability were to be implemented. The Chairman responded by letter dated August 4, 1989, as follows: During the deliberations of the Board of Arbitration, I expressed the view that the Union should proceed to the D.C. Public Employee Relations Board to challenge Management's declaration of nonnegotiability. The Union member of the Board of Arbitration disputed my view that the Union had the burden of going forward. As I have stated to the Board members and to the parties, my arbitral role does not extend to ordering the procedures through which these negotiability determinations may be considered. Therefore, any clarification beyond these comments would exceed my arbitral authority in this dispute.