Overview

Labor relations can be very difficult. However, the degree of difficulty can vary at certain levels of government because there is no right to strike at the federal level, while unions at the state and local levels sometimes have that right. Moreover, at times you deal with union officials who are members of the workforce, while at other times, you may deal with individuals who are actually employed by the union. Although this chapter cannot possibly cover every type of labor situation you may encounter, it is intended to provide you with an understanding of the key issues from both management’s and the union’s perspective.

Far too often, management tends to see the union as a minor annoyance or, in some cases, as a major impediment to getting the job done. Sometimes this is true, while other times it is not. In many cases, management’s negative attitude toward the union often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Management needs to be aware that the union is a political organization and, as such, needs to answer to its constituency—the bargaining unit. As with all politicians, union officials need to retain the confidence of the people they serve, if they hope to win reelection. This constant pressure to stay in office often drives the behavior of union officials. From their perspective, if they are too cooperative with management, the bargaining unit will perceive them as being “in bed with management” and will conclude that they are not out to serve the unit’s employees. They are also bound by the governing labor law, which usually requires them to represent all of the bargaining unit members, even if they do not agree with the employee’s position.

Union officials come with all sorts of agendas, just like management officials. Some are driven by the desire to help their fellow employees, while others feel they’ve been mistreated by management and want to pay them back in kind. Certain union officials are reasonable people who want to do the right thing for the right reasons, while others use their position in the union to try and insulate them from management action in response to their poor performance and/or behavior.

The point is that as a manager you have to be prepared to deal with all types of union officials in the same way that you have to deal with all sorts of employees. The more skills you have, and the more tools you have in your toolbox, the better prepared you will be to address whatever labor situation confronts you.

In one of my earliest experiences with unions, I dealt with a union president who was a decent individual. He was occasionally loud and cantankerous in describing certain supervisors, but I always had the sense that he was a fair person who was trying to do the right thing.

He was also a part-time union president who spent a portion of his day as a nursing assistant, so he was not very knowledgeable from a technical perspective when it came to labor relations. In dealing with him, I simply tried to treat him with respect and promptly address the issues that he brought to my attention. When he was right, I attempted to quickly resolve the issue at hand so I would build some trust with him and establish a good working relationship.

In my second assignment, I encountered a union official who very angry with local management. Earlier in his career, he had applied for a job in a different organization. However, because his assistant division chief had given him a poor appraisal, he was unable to get that job. He blamed local management for this and was determined to get a measure of revenge by filing a wide variety of complaints.

In a given year, he would file more than 100 unfair labor practice charges (ULPs) against management. His true motivation was revenge, not helping the bargaining unit, so in this situation, I had to take a different approach. I decided to use the labor relations system to try and contain him. Otherwise, if I tried to resolve every single complaint that he filed, I would waste an enormous amount of management time and only encourage him to file more complaints. As a result, I scanned every ULP that was filed and, in most cases, allowed them to go forward to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). I knew that the FLRA would dismiss the vast majority of these cases, as I had enough knowledge about labor relations that I was confident in my judgment. That was exactly what happened.

Meanwhile, for those few cases that had merit, I generally negotiated a settlement. In this way, I was able to prevent our managers from wasting their time on complaints that had no merit, while resolving cases that had merit before they ever resulted in third-party intervention. Eventually, that union official stopped filing so many ULPs because he was not accomplishing anything other than annoying the FLRA.

On occasion, I have also dealt with full-time national employees of the union. The government does not employ these individuals, so their perspective is quite different. They are less understanding of the local situation and have a greater appreciation of the big picture, particularly the union’s broad goals. Also, because they are full-time union employees, they tend to be more professional and much more knowledgeable about labor law, including case law.

When dealing with these individuals, the relationship tends to be less emotional because they are not caught up in local politics. However, just like anyone else, they also bring their own personality and agenda into the equation, and need to be dealt with accordingly. Many of these individuals also bring a wide range of experience, expertise, and money to the table, and can be intimidating to relatively inexperienced members of management.

The best way to deal with these types of union officials is to be professional, be prepared, and not take things personally. If you are an HRM specialist, you need to learn as much as you can about labor law, strategy, and tactics. If you are not an HRM specialist, you need to remain cool, calm, and collected and make sure you have a good advisor. You also have to understand the national union’s broad goals, so you will have a better idea as to where it is coming from.

Regardless of the type of union official(s) you are dealing with, it is important to develop an overall philosophy and strategy for dealing with unions. Let’s examine these concepts in greater detail.

Overall Philosophy

Keep the Union Informed

In my experience, a large number of labor problems develop because the union lacks basic information. Far too often, it hears about a problem from a bargaining unit employee and winds up filing a complaint based on limited information. The best way to prevent this situation from happening is to maintain an open and upfront relationship with the union, whereby it is kept informed about key developments in the organization.

I have learned that if most people were sitting in my seat and had access to the same information that I had, the vast majority of the time, they would make the same decision that I made. The problem is that people rarely have access to that information, so they wind up making decisions that affect them based on a limited base of information, or, in many cases, misinformation.

From the union’s perspective, every time it hears a complaint from a bargaining unit employee regarding an issue it is unfamiliar with, it looks bad. The union appears to be out of the loop, and insignificant because management has chosen not to share information. This, in turn, frustrates union representatives because they feel disrespected, so they often turn to the internal complaint system to get management’s attention. As managers see the number of complaints begin to rise, they tend to get angry with the union, so in response, they start communicating even less. As you can see, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where everyone winds up losing.

The better approach is to share information with the union as often as you can, in a variety of different ways (in writing, through one-on-one meetings, etc.). Through this approach, the union will feel valued and respected and will be in a much better position to address the complaints of its constituents. Moreover, as it starts to feel valued, it will begin to share information with you, which will help you address problems before they develop to a significant degree.

I used to meet with our union president at least twice a month in order to let her know what was going on. I would give her my sense of the national picture and then let her know what was on my mind and what we were planning to do locally. I also gave her the opportunity to challenge some of my long-term plans, since I wanted to hear her objections at that point, rather than waiting until we were in negotiations. By taking this approach, I developed a strong working relationship with the union president, and I found that she was often willing to share information with me that would help keep me out of trouble.

I also learned that she often spoke very highly about our management team to outsiders. This added bonus helped to positively shape the outside world’s view of our organization’s labor climate, which is always a good thing in a highly political environment.

One time the union president came to me in exasperation because one of our division chiefs had announced a major reorganization that affected many members of the bargaining unit. She had been caught off guard when the reorganization had been announced, which made her appear to be weak and incompetent in front of the unit. Moreover, we had not fulfilled our bargaining obligations prior to the announcement, so we had mishandled the situation from both a legal and a tactical perspective.

I immediately apologized to the union president, instructed the division chief to commence negotiations with her prior to implementing the reorganization, and ensured that in the future, she was aware of major changes well in advance of their implementation. While we mishandled the situation and hurt our relationship with the union in the short term, by admitting we were wrong and promptly resolving the issues in question, we were able to quickly repair our relationship.

In another example, I once visited an organization that had a terrible relationship with its union. There was absolutely no trust and virtually no communication other than what was legally required, and that was almost always done in writing. The leader of the organization had an imperial style that tended to turn people off. Moreover, she considered the union to be beneath her, so she saw no point in sharing information with union representatives.

The union officials felt marginalized by management, as they rarely knew what was going on and were never included in any substantive decisions. As a result, they felt that they had no choice but to strike back at management by filing complaints as often as possible. They concluded that this was the only way that they could get anything accomplished.

While both parties were at fault, upper management was largely responsible for the poor labor-management relationship, as it set the tone by refusing to share information or treat the union with respect. The relationship continued to flounder until the organization’s senior leader retired, after which communication and the overall relationship finally began to improve.

Treat the Union Well

I’m always amazed how shabbily union officials seem to be treated by management. Their rights are often disregarded; they are frequently kept out of key decisions; and far too often, they are simply ignored. Sometimes this works just fine, especially where the union is weak or does not care. Under this scenario, the union is not a key player, and everything seems to work out. If you are in this situation, consider yourself lucky. However, on other occasions, when management treats the union poorly, the union will find ways to reciprocate.

I’m a firm believer in treating the union well, because in most cases, it will respond in kind. If you believe the union is important and treat it as a valued stakeholder, it will act the part and will deal with you on a higher plane. It will be far less interested in raising petty issues if it thinks it is a player. By contrast, if it feels unimportant, then every issue, no matter how trivial, will be important to the union, because it will provide union representatives with an opportunity to demonstrate their power. Under this scenario, the worse you treat them, the more powerful they will become, because they will use their inherent power to push you around with the tools provided them by law and contract. They will follow your lead, so it is up to you to choose.

At one point in my career, I became the leader of an organization that had a tenuous relationship with its union. The first thing that struck me was how poor the union’s office was. It was virtually a cubbyhole, which almost screamed out that management thought the union was unimportant and unworthy of decent work space. This message was not lost on the union, and all of its officers felt slighted by management. I immediately offered the union better space, which sent a message that I valued its contribution to the organization.

Although giving the union more space certainly did not solve all of our labor–management problems, it did establish a level of respect and cooperation between management and the union that was not there before. In addition, it helped establish a healthier tone in the relationship, which made it easier to address the difficult issues that we faced down the road.

Whenever I held group employee meetings, I always made it my practice to call on the union president for comment. It let her know that her opinion was important to me, and it let others know that I truly valued what the union had to say. It elevated her status both within the organization and with the bargaining unit, and almost compelled her to respond in kind.

Whenever I called on her to speak, she generally spoke in a professional and dignified manner, befitting the status I bestowed upon her. Interestingly, during times when I did not pay as much attention to labor relations, and perhaps was not as respectful as I could have been, she tended to revert to a more traditional and confrontational manner.

On occasion, no matter how well you treat the union, nothing seems to work. A kindness is not returned, a respectful act is ignored, and so on. I’ve faced this situation several times during my career. The first time involved a new union president who was seeking more official time than his predecessor. We resisted giving him more official time because we were not required to by contract and because we wanted him to focus on his regular job. However, this angered him, and he began filing a series of complaints on almost any issue that arose.

I tried to treat him with respect and to explain to him why we were not in favor of granting more official time, but he ignored my efforts and continued to file complaints. This angered the management team, which was frustrated about all of the time required to respond to his complaints, and they started to treat him poorly. The net result was that things were spiraling out of control.

As time went by, I began to wonder if we were cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces. It began to dawn on me that we were sometimes spending many hours per week fighting over a bunch of issues that would probably not come up had we granted him a few more hours of official time.

Eventually, when we negotiated our local supplemental agreement, we agreed to increase his hours in exchange for virtually everything else we wanted as management. Not only did we wind up with an incredibly short labor agreement, but we also improved our relationship with the union president because he suddenly felt more valued and he now had more official time. The bottom line for us is that we gave him a few more hours of official time in exchange for far more time that could be devoted to our core work, and we had defused a very tense relationship with the union.

A new union official assumed power. She was an extremely cynical individual who was near the end of her career. She had had a checkered career, which was marked by performance and conduct-related problems.

Prior to her election, she had spent many years in various capacities with the union, and several of her mentors were among the most difficult individuals I had ever dealt with. Once she took over, it quickly became clear that she would be tough to deal with. She was unsure of herself, other than what appeared to be her contempt for management. She was not very knowledgeable about labor-relations law, reluctant to make commitments, and difficult to trust. We tried to treat her well and elevate her status, but she didn’t bite. Apparently, she just had so many bad experiences in her career (and perhaps her life) that she was going to use this opportunity to get some payback and make things difficult for management.

The only thing I could do was to deal with her professionally and without emotion, and to try and address each issue that she raised. The goal in this situation was to ensure that she caused as little damage to the organization as possible, and to allow the supervisors to focus on their work, rather than on her complaints. I tried to resolve issues whenever possible, but stuck to my guns when cases were referred to third parties. Given the fact that I was much more knowledgeable about labor-relations law than she was, it was relatively easy for us to prevail in the vast majority of cases.

Since management did not overreact to her complaints, and since she almost always lost before third parties, she began to see that she was not achieving many of her goals. Moreover, after I left the organization, the same pattern continued, as my successors adopted a similar approach. Eventually, she realized that constantly attacking the organization with little apparent success was not particularly rewarding, and she retired.

Let the Union Have Some Victories

Being in a political organization, union officials need to show some positive results if they are going to remain in office. If management tries to beat them down at every turn, and never acknowledges that the union can be right, it is taking a dangerous approach. Under this scenario, union officials are going to quickly become frustrated and will look for other ways to show the bargaining unit that they are protecting its interests. This may involve filing an increasing number of complaints, lead to a greater reluctance to resolve outstanding issues, or trigger a harder edge to the union’s rhetoric. Whatever happens, managers need to clearly understand that for every action there is a reaction, and unless the union gets some victories, there will surely be a reaction that they won’t like.

Earlier in my career, I did not see things that way. My view was much more narrow, and I used to brag about the fact that the union had never won a case. Eventually, I realized that we were winning all of the battles but losing the war, because our reluctance to give the union any victories was triggering more and more complaints, which was taking up a larger portion of our time. I finally figured out that maintaining good relations with the representatives of our employees was much more important than winning every time.

That’s not to say that you have to compromise your values. Rather, you need to recognize that union officials are people, they have a role to play, and, just like everyone else, they want to succeed. If you take a practical approach to dealing with the union, don’t take it personally, and understand where it is coming from, in most cases, you will do well. Consider the following true scenarios:

1. A few years ago, I wanted to implement a dress code within our office. It was important to me because it was part of my overall strategy to make our office more professional. The dress code banned jeans, tee shirts, sneakers, suggestive outfits, baseball caps, and similar informal apparel. From my perspective, having the employees improve their appearance would make them feel like they were part of a class organization, make our customers feel that they were being served by professionals, and shape the outside world’s view of our organization by showing them that we were becoming more serious about our work.

The union understood where I was coming from but faced resistance from certain members of the workforce, who wanted to retain our more relaxed atmosphere. The most emotional issue seemed to be my insistence that all men wear ties. I thought that we could prevail should this case wind up at impasse, but that would take time to unfold, and I was concerned that hard feelings would also be created and the union could lose face. Eventually, I agreed that only male employees who greeted the public would be required to wear ties. I also agreed to a casual dress day on the last Friday of each month. I got 95 percent of what I wanted out of the dress code, yet the union had a victory as well.

2. In another related episode, the union missed the due date for filing a grievance and, after the fact, asked me to extend the deadline. It was obvious that it was embarrassed by this mistake and did not want to have to go back to the grievant and tell him that the union blew his grievance. I could easily have declined to extend the deadline because we had a contract, but in situations like this, the door swings both ways. I could tell that this was an important case to the union, so I agreed to extend the deadline.

By my taking this approach, union representatives did not lose face with the grievant, I built some goodwill with them, and we both knew that if I missed a deadline, they would cut me some slack. Moreover, I still had the opportunity to reject the grievance if I felt that it lacked merit.

3. At another juncture, we issued performance improvement plans to several of our employees. The union complained that these plans were technically deficient because we had not previously advised these employees that their performance had been under par. As relief, it requested that we withdraw the improvement plans.

I thought the union’s argument was somewhat shaky. There was some evidence that the employees had been counseled, although perhaps not to the extent envisioned by the contract. After considering all of the facts, I decided to withdraw the performance improvement notices. The union had an arguable position, and there was no real harm in taking a bit more time to tighten up our case. The union had a small victory, while we formally counseled the employees. Within a month or so, we wound up reissuing the performance improvement plans to most of the affected employees.

In all three of these cases, I listened carefully to the union and gave ground where it was appropriate. That being said, in most cases, I normally decided against the union. However, because my decisions were well reasoned, and because I did not always decide against it, the union was at least able to accept the fact that I would always consider its position and sometimes agree with it. In essence, I gave union representatives enough victories to strengthen them politically, while preserving management’s position on the key issues.

By contrast, when I was dealing with a union that was dead set on harassing management, I would still consider each issue on a case-by-case basis, and try and do the right thing. However, I did not look to give union officials any unnecessary victories, because I had no interest in giving them any political cover.

Negotiations

Negotiating with unions is an art unto itself. It requires considerable skill, a careful understanding of the issues at hand, knowledge of labor relations, a cool hand, and the ability to look down the road and see the ramifications of the agreements that you make. It also requires keen insight into human behavior, as you need to be able to read the people you are negotiating with and understand when to settle and when to stick to your guns.

I have been involved in all sorts of negotiations. Some have been relatively easy and straightforward, while others have been painful and exhausting. Some have been local in scope, while others have had national ramifications. From these negotiations, I have learned the following lessons, which have served me well throughout my career.

Be Prepared

Whenever I approached negotiations with the union, I always tried to prepare as much as possible. This meant trying to learn as much about the union’s perspective in advance as possible, so I was totally prepared to address the issues. This also meant understanding management’s position, so I knew the boundaries, as well as what we were trying to accomplish.

I tried to get copies of agreements pertaining to similar issues that had been negotiated by other offices, and a sense as to how those agreements were playing out. Also, I tried to read as much case law as possible, so I was aware of potential negotiability issues as well as cases that had been decided at impasse. Following is an example of these lessons in practice.

At the start of negotiations on a new local agreement, the union presented me with a 55-page, single-spaced series of proposals. At first blush, it appeared that we would be involved in a series of never-ending negotiations to deal with all of these proposals. However, I had already been engaged in many behind-the-scenes discussions with the union, so I knew that the 55-page proposal was just a ploy to pressure us into giving it what it really wanted, which was more official time for one official. Moreover, having done my homework, I knew that many of its proposals were nonnegotiable in the federal sector.

I sat down with the management team (I was the personnel officer at the time), explained where I thought the negotiations were going, described the strategies that I intended to use, and got the go-ahead to move forward. I then sat down with the union representatives, advised them of management’s positions, including its belief that many of the union’s proposals were nonnegotiable, and explained to them that I was prepared to focus on the core issues, which were official time and employee breaks. Shortly thereafter, the union realized that it was dealing with a worthy adversary and began to negotiate in a professional manner.

The eventual agreement gave more official time to the one official, but reduced the total amount of official time for the union. We also agreed to raise employee breaks from 10 minutes to 15 minutes, which was the informal practice anyway. The final agreement was only three pages.

Stay Cool

Staying cool is one of the keys to being a good negotiator. Labor negotiations can be very emotional, because a lot is often at stake, so it is imperative that you stay relaxed. People who stay calm tend to see things clearly and exercise good judgment. People who get emotional tend to speak before they think, and once you say something stupid, it is too late to take it back.

One of my rules of thumb is to remember that labor negotiations never affect my personal life. They are part of my business life and are important, but they don’t affect my family or my friends. This helps me keep the negotiations in perspective whenever things get emotional or seem to be out of control.

The first time I was involved in major negotiations, the union brought in a strong, savvy, and determined individual to represent it. He frequently tried to intimidate me by threatening to take certain actions (filing complaints, going to the media, contacting my headquarters, etc.) if I didn’t comply with his demands. When I gave him management’s proposals, he literally took a pair of scissors, cut them up, and threw the pieces on the table.

This individual was clearly attempting to throw me off my game and force me to act emotionally. He knew that if I let my emotions color my judgment, I would make mistakes that he could take advantage of. For example, if I made any antiunion remarks, he would be in a good position to file a ULP and claim that I was not negotiating in good faith.

Fortunately, by nature, I am not an overly emotional person. Every time he attacked me, I simply took a deep breath and stayed calm and composed, which tended to make him look silly. Moreover, I knew he was becoming frustrated, because his game plan was not working. Eventually, he changed his tactics and behaved more professionally. After that, we were able to complete negotiations.

Understand the Long-Term Impact of an Agreement

When you negotiate an agreement with the union, you are committing your organization to live by the terms of that agreement for years to come. That is a major responsibility, since if you make a mistake, the organization will pay for it in many ways. That is why it is so important to be prepared and to stay cool under pressure; you never want to agree to something that will later come back to haunt the government. You need to carefully consider each issue on the table, make sure you have the perspective of the people who will have to live with the agreement, recognize how the agreement affects your organization’s ability to manage the workload, and then (and only then) agree to a proposal if it makes sense.

Naturally, you also need to be aware of the political ramifications of the negotiations and have a good feel as to the strength of your position(s) in the event you go to impasse. However, the bottom line is that when you are representing the government during negotiations, you need to do right by the government—both in the short term and in the long term. Two stories will illustrate the point.

1. I was involved in negotiations on a local contract. We reached agreement on all articles of our contract except for one clause that related to the manner in which we assigned our employees. The union wanted to place an overly restrictive clause in the contract that would have made us “jump through hoops” to dole out certain assignments to our employees, and I simply refused to agree to it. Although I had enough personnel knowledge that I probably could have gotten around that clause, I would have also been placing my successors in an uncomfortable position. As a result of my intransigence on that one clause, we never signed that contract. From my perspective, that was preferable to living with an agreement that I knew was not in the best interests of the government.

2. Many years ago, our administration negotiated a national labor agreement. The negotiations were very contentious, and were marked by ill feelings on both sides. What was striking about these negotiations was that the head of our administration had an unusually close relationship with the union, and often seemed to side with the national union president more than he did with his own negotiating team.

He made it clear that he did not want any outstanding issues going to impasse, which forced the team to agree to certain provisions of the contract that it was not particularly happy with. Performance-based actions required more steps and took additional time, disciplinary actions took longer, grievances became more difficult to deal with, and so on. The head of the administration left shortly after the contract became effective, but the supervisors below him had to live with the additional burdens of that contract.

Several years later, a new leader came in and initiated negotiations with the union to improve the terms of that agreement.

Frame the Issue

As negotiations proceed toward the end game, on occasion, the parties can be so far apart that they are unable to reach agreement on one or more of the remaining issues. When this happens, it is extremely important that you frame the issue to your best advantage. Otherwise, if the union frames the issue, or frames the issue better than you do, a mediator and/or an impasses panel will tend to see the issue from the union’s perspective. This is somewhat analogous to a judge giving instructions to a jury. If the judge’s instructions favor either side’s position, that party starts off with a major advantage.

Framing an issue simply means clarifying exactly what issue is to be decided. If the issue is not clarified properly, the wrong issue may be decided, which can be to your disadvantage.

As discussed earlier, I entered negotiations with our local union to implement a dress code. It tried to frame the issue by asking, “Why do we need a dress code?” If that became the issue, I would be in the difficult position of having to explain how a dress code would help our organization improve its service to our customers. While there is plenty of literature available that states that a dress code helps organizations to improve, there is perhaps an equal amount of literature that takes the opposite point of view. Since I did not want to get into a debate about that point, I decided to frame the issue differently.

I found an old national policy statement that indicated that if local offices wanted to establish dress codes, they should be consistent with the business dress in the area surrounding the office. Accordingly, I framed the issue as being, “What is the local business dress?”

We put together a dress code team and sent it into the community to look into this further. Instead of debating the need for a dress code, the team’s mission became one of fact-finding. Once it gathered the data, we used the information as the basis for our negotiations, which kept things less emotional and more professional, and, more importantly, focused everyone on the issue that was important to me.

A peer of mine decided to establish a similar dress code in another office. Rather than using the national policy statement as the basis for local negotiations, he simply tried to develop and implement a local dress code. As you might expect, the union fiercely resisted the code, arguing that there was no need for it. Contentious negotiations ensued, after which the issue was finally referred to the Federal Services Impasses Panel (FSIP) for resolution.

Management framed the issue by arguing that a dress code was needed to improve the office’s productivity. It based its position on the belief that a more professionally dressed workforce tends to perform better. The union countered by arguing that a dress code was unnecessary, and pointed out that its office already had very high productivity. The FSIP bought the union’s argument, and decided that a dress code for that particular office was not required.

In retrospect, had that office framed the issue differently, it would have been in a much better position to prevail. It might have framed the issue this way: “Will a dress code help present a more professional image of our office to both our customers and the public?”

Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Charges

Federal, state, and local statutes create rights and obligations on the part of management, unions, and employees in a workplace represented by a union. If management or the union fails to live up to its obligations to the other, a ULP may be filed with the appropriate body. A ULP can also be filed if either management or the union interferes with the rights each has been given under the appropriate statute. Employees may also assert their rights under the governing statute by filing ULP charges against labor or management.

Examples of management ULPs include negotiating in bad faith, retaliating against employees for exercising their right to seek union representation, excluding unions from certain management meetings with bargaining unit employees, and refusing to provide a union with information that it needs to fulfill its representational responsibilities. Examples of union ULPs include negotiating in bad faith, refusing to represent bargaining unit employees because they are not members of the union, and attempting to influence management to discipline employees who did not join the union.

A ULP charge is a tool that can be used by both labor unions and management, although in the vast majority of cases, unions usually file it. This is because management holds the majority of the cards, so unions often file ULPs in order to get the attention of management.

ULPs typically involve the filing of a charge and an investigation by the body that handles these types of issues (the FLRA in the federal government, a state Labor Relations Board, etc.). If the investigation demonstrates that there is merit to the charge, a formal complaint is then issued, which is adjudicated by an administrative law judge of that same body. If the parties are unable to settle the matter, a decision is then rendered, either dismissing the complaint or finding that a violation has been committed and ordering appropriate relief. Appropriate relief can range from posting the violation notice wherein the agency agrees that it violated the law and pledges not to repeat the offense, to, in some cases, a much more severe penalty that could involve a return to the status quo.

As you can see, ULPs are not to be taken lightly. By the same token, because they take a long time to be adjudicated, there is plenty of opportunity to resolve the issue at hand before a violation is ever issued. The key in these matters is to (1) understand and try to follow the law; (2) ensure that the supervisors are aware of their labor-relations obligations; and (3) develop a good relationship with the union, so that if a violation occurs, you will work together to try to resolve the issue without the intervention of a third party.

However, if you are involved in an adverse relationship with the union that is not of your making, you may find yourself in the ULP arena far more often than you would like. Under these circumstances, you need to develop a strategy that will allow you to contest the ULPs without getting bogged down in a series of seemingly never-ending battles.

Let’s look at a few cases to see how I dealt with ULPs that were filed by the union.

1. I took over an organization that had just undergone a change in the union’s leadership. The new team was younger, more aggressive, and much less willing to work with management. Shortly before I arrived, the new team began filing a series of ULPs. The complaints alleged that management failed to negotiate with the union on changes in working conditions, and that the union was not given the opportunity to attend certain formal meetings with the bargaining unit.

The local management team resented this new approach to labor relations and took the ULPs very personally. It stopped talking to the union, communicated with the union almost exclusively in writing, and did nothing to address the issues described in the ULPs.

When I arrived, the FLRA was in the process of investigating seven ULPs. After examining the charges, I quickly concluded that the union was right and that management was likely to lose every case. I discussed the cases with the FLRA’s investigator, who informed me that I was right and that he would soon be issuing formal complaints against our organization. At that point, I sat down with the union, discussed its concerns, and settled the cases by agreeing to (1) bargain where appropriate; (2) include the union at all meetings where it had a right to be present; and (3) conduct labor relations training for management so it would not continue to make the same mistakes.

Although I knew that this group was going to be difficult to deal with, I had at least gotten off to a good start with it by earning its respect through my knowledge of labor relations and my willingness to try and address its concerns.

Moreover, the local management team realized that I had saved it the pain and embarrassment of losing seven ULPs, so it deferred to me on future issues involving labor-management relations.

2. The union just described would periodically file ULPs whenever it wanted to pressure management into giving it what it desired. I addressed each complaint on a case-by-case basis, settling cases where we were wrong, while disputing those complaints where we were right. I did not want to settle every case, since that would only encourage the union to file more and more complaints. Perhaps the hardest thing to do was to not take things personally, as it was clearly frustrating to be constantly on the receiving end of a seemingly never-ending series of complaints.

Over time, it became clear to me that the union was abusing the federal labor relations system. It was simply filing complaints as a means to an end—that is, more power—instead of complaining about issues that it truly believed in. Eventually, we started pushing back. We filed several ULPs and grievances against the union, alleging that it was dealing with us in bad faith. This got the union’s attention and the attention of its headquarters, and at least made the union more cautious in trying to use the system to harass us.

3. I was working with a different union that rarely filed complaints. After several years, it filed its first ULP against our organization, alleging that we were excluding the union from certain meetings, and it was right.

This was a wake-up call to me, because it let me know that while this union was much more reasonable than the last one, it wasn’t a pushover, either. We had been taking the union for granted, and it had responded in kind. We quickly settled the complaint, conducted training for our supervisors on which meetings the union had the right to attend, and instituted more frequent meetings with the union so we would be aware of its concerns before they became formalized.

Grievances

Grievance Procedures

Grievances are complaints filed by employees expressing dissatisfaction with some aspect of their working conditions. Typically, there are two kinds of grievance procedures. The first, and most common, is the negotiated grievance procedure. This procedure is developed by both management and labor and covers all members of the bargaining unit. It establishes the issues that are subject to grievance,¹ as well as the procedures to be followed. This usually includes the time frames for both filing and responding to grievances, as well as the process for resolving them in the event that management is unable to satisfy the grievant.

The other procedure involves the government organization’s internal process for resolving grievances. This procedure is often more restrictive than the negotiated one in terms of the issues that can be grieved, the time frames for filing and responding to the grievance, and so on. Moreover, unlike the negotiated procedure, which usually calls for arbitration as the final step, the final decision under the internal grievance procedure normally rests with the government.

How to Handle a Grievance

The best way to handle a grievance is to fully and fairly consider each issue on its own merits. Even if you find against the employee, if she believes you at least gave her her day in court, she is unlikely to come out of the process angry or embittered.

I always tried to meet with the employee (and her representative if she brought one), and listen carefully to her complaint. During the meeting, I usually took notes (or had an HR specialist take notes for me) and always asked a few questions. If you don’t take notes or ask any questions, both the employee and her representative will quickly conclude that you had already made up your mind before the meeting and were not truly interested in considering the grievance and trying to do the right thing.

At the end of the meeting, I always tried to rephrase the employee’s grievance in order to ensure that (1) I understood all of the issues at hand; and (2) the employee recognized that I was paying attention to what she was complaining about. I also tried to give her management’s perspective so she would have a more three-dimensional view of the issue.

If the employee were a chronic complainer, the type that tried to abuse the system, I would still look at each issue on its own merits and try and do the right thing. I made sure that I did not act or respond emotionally, and that I was professional at all times. At the same time, I did not want to encourage this individual to continually file complaints (unless the complaints had merit), so I looked at his grievances in the context of his overall pattern of behavior, and made my decisions accordingly.

Every time you make a decision on a grievance, you are playing to several audiences. The employee, his representative, the entire union, and at least some members of the bargaining unit are closely watching your decision. At the same time, the supervisors are watching you, too, wondering if you are going to support their decision or side with the employee. Lastly, you also need to be sensitive to the fact that if the grievant is dissatisfied with your decision and wants to pursue it further, your decision will be subject to review by another person. That’s a tough position to be in, and it’s why you need to be aware of the message you are sending each time you make a decision.

In responding to grievances, I keep all these audiences in mind. As a result, I try to phrase my responses in a professional and sensitive manner, to make sure that anyone reading my response understands that I carefully considered the grievance and attempted to do the right thing. I also try and give enough information so that the reader understands the rationale behind my decision, while not writing so much that the information contained in my response could be used against me.

For example, the union filed a grievance over a number of performance improvement plans that we had issued to our employees. The grievance was based on its belief that we should not issue such plans to our employees until we had made a good-faith effort to train them. As part of the grievance, it pointed out a number of deficiencies in the training.

After looking into this issue, I concluded that the union was right. Our training had been rather skimpy and clearly needed to be improved. If we were to go forward with the performance improvement plans, and later took action against the employees, I believed we were likely to lose before a third party. More importantly, I thought withdrawing the improvement plans was the right thing to do, as our employees deserved to receive quality training. Accordingly, I sustained the grievance and sat down with our management team and crafted a strategy that ensured that our employees received the appropriate training. Later on, after the training had been completed, we were able to successfully take action against several individuals based on poor performance.

In another instance, an employee filed a grievance over the fact that he had not been allowed to work overtime. After looking into the matter, I learned that he had not been allowed to work overtime because his day-to-day output had been very low. In addition, we only had a limited amount of money available for overtime, and his division chief wanted to ensure that he was spending it wisely.

I met with the employee and carefully listened to his concerns. I then explained management’s position and asked him what he would do if he were in the same position as his division chief. He stated that he probably would have done the same thing, but that he needed the money and really wanted to work overtime in the future. I told him that I believed he had been treated fairly, so I was likely to deny the grievance. However, I also stated that I would ask his division chief to meet with him and tell him exactly how much more work he needed to do on a daily basis to qualify for overtime. The employee felt this was fair and, after receiving my written denial, which restated the reasons I had verbally given him, did not pursue the grievance any further.

Another example occurred early in my career. An internal statistical quality review of the work of one of our employees resulted in his being charged with a total of 29 errors. This employee had been a long-term problem, and he tried to have these errors reversed by filing 29 separate grievances. He knew that his job would be in jeopardy if the errors were not reversed, so he did everything he could to make things difficult for management.

As personnel officer, I participated in the grievance meeting along with the grievant, his union representative, and the director, who was the deciding official. The employee attempted to make a farce out of the meeting by walking in and out of the meeting and arguing that each error was wrong, without providing any evidence to indicate why the error was incorrectly called. All along, he kept contending that he had 29 different grievances. Eventually, the director terminated the meeting, indicating that he had heard enough from this individual.

When I crafted the director’s response, we decided to turn the tables on the employee. We agreed that there were 29 separate grievances, and denied them accordingly. By taking this approach, if the employee wanted to pursue these grievances further, the union would have had to agree to share in the cost of 29 separate arbitrations. We knew that this would never happen; the grievances ended at that point, and the employee was eventually demoted.

Lessons Learned

Build a Personal Relationship with the Union

I learned early on that if you constantly fight with the union, you may win most of the battles, but you will still lose the war. All of the time that you spend fighting the union is wasted time, since it is time that cannot be devoted to your core mission. While there may be occasions where you have no choice but to go down that path, most of the time you can avoid that ordeal by developing a personal relationship with the union.

I have found that the more you deal with union officials on a human level, and the more they see you as a thinking, feeling individual, the more difficult it becomes for them to attack you on a personal level. That is why I strongly advocate building a personal relationship with union officials. Try and find a common interest with them, go to lunch with them, do whatever it takes to build a relationship. The more work you put into such a relationship, the less work you’ll have to put into fighting the union.

I once became involved in a very difficult situation wherein management and the union clearly despised each other. Both parties did not trust each other, which resulted in a never-ending series of grievances, complaints, and confrontations. Upon my arrival, I saw why management did not like its union counterparts. By and large, they were a group of angry, disenfranchised individuals whom I did not particularly care for either.

My initial reaction was to fight them tooth and nail on everything, but that only caused more trouble. I had to find a better way to deal with this situation. Eventually, I tried to get to know the union president better, since he was the driving force behind our labor problems.

I found out that he had a personal interest in professional wrestling. Since my son was also into wrestling at the time, I was familiar with many of the names and characters. I began to discuss wrestling with the president on a regular basis, which gave us something in common. As our relationship developed, he slowly began to open up to me, which gave me more insight into his thinking and enabled me to address many of the underlying issues.

Use Humor

Labor relations can often be a tense business, since it usually involves the union coming to management with complaints about the working conditions. As such, management often anticipates these meetings with trepidation, while the union knows that it will not be welcomed with open arms. The natural tension between these two parties often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, leading to posturing, mistrust, and outright anger.

I have found that humor works very well in a labor-relations setting. A little levity goes a long way toward keeping things on an even keel and preventing meetings from getting out of hand. Whenever things get tense to the point where someone is about to say something that he or she will regret, I often chime in with a wisecrack or a whimsical story in order to defuse the tension. The more often you can keep the discussion grounded, the more productive will be the meeting, and humor is simply a superb elixir for your short-term labor problems.

A union president once came to see me in an angry mood because she felt that a certain management official had treated her disrespectfully. While I disagreed with her interpretation of the official’s behavior, I knew she was emotional and would not listen to reason at that point. Accordingly, I began the meeting by telling her the following story involving my young son Marc:

“Marc had to do a paper on someone whose job it is to help people. He decided that he was going to do it on me. He asked me what my job was. I told him that my job was to help veterans. He dutifully wrote that down. I asked him if he knew what a veteran is. He replied, ‘Sure, a veteran is someone who takes care of sick animals.’”

The union president laughed at my story and almost immediately relaxed. While she was still upset about the management official’s behavior, a little humor had helped to deplete some of her anger, and we proceeded to pleasantly and professionally discuss the incident in question and resolved it shortly thereafter.

Be Wary of Union Factoids

As managers, we not only have to deal with the union, but we also have to deal with our employees and our supervisors as well. These groups, particularly the supervisors, often interact with the unions on a daily basis and frequently hear the union say things that sound right.

For example, the union might say, “You can’t have that workload meeting without the union being present because it involves members of the bargaining unit.” On first blush, that might make sense to many supervisors who are inexperienced in labor relations, since in certain segments of government, the union has the right to be present at formal meetings. However, formal meetings normally mean meetings where working conditions are discussed, not simple workload meetings. Unfortunately, because the supervisor heard a union official say this in a firm and decisive manner, he believed him and acted accordingly.

I refer to these types of statements as union factoids, because in most cases the union official is espousing what he believes to be true, and not necessarily what the law or union contract requires. Union officials can often be wrong because they are typically full-time government employees who spend part of their time working for the union and therefore are not technical experts with respect to labor relations. Other times, union officials hold a legitimate point of view on an issue that is different from management’s perspective. The problem here is that in many cases, the supervisor is even less knowledgeable on labor law than the union official, and therefore acts according to the law and/or contract in a way defined by the union’s pronouncement of factoids.

Obviously, as managers we want to prevent such a situation from either developing or continuing. The best way to handle this situation is to (1) give frequent training on labor relations to your supervisors; and (2) ensure that they have access to an HR specialist who is highly knowledgeable about labor relations. In addition, they should be taught that in the event the union tells them that they are doing something wrong, they should reply, “Okay, let me look into this issue and I’ll get back to you,” rather than conceding defeat on an issue where they may be absolutely correct. Consider this situation, which actually happened.

The union told one of our supervisors that he was required to invite a union official to a meeting where we gave our employees a disciplinary or adverse action. In fact, the union has no such legal right. However, the supervisor believed the union official and began inviting him to every meeting in which he gave out an admonishment, a reprimand, or other disciplinary action.

As a result, whenever this union official attended such a meeting, he prolonged it by arguing about the personnel action. Moreover, instead of being at his desk working, he was attending a meeting that he had no legal right to be at. This all occurred because the supervisor believed the union official’s factoid instead of first checking with an HR advisor.

Learn to Think Like the Union

The more you understand where the union is coming from, the better you will be able to deal with it. When union officials come to you with an issue, it is generally either driven by one or more complaints from the bargaining unit, or based on one of the unit’s hot-button issues (i.e., those it is very sensitive about).

Complaints from the bargaining unit may be broad-based, although in most cases they involve only a limited number of people. That is because many of today’s government unions have a relatively limited base of support, since the newer and more educated employees do not see them as adding much value.² Their base is generally the older employees and the marginal and disaffected employees, who feel that they need the union to protect them.

In these situations, the union often focuses on the perception that the top employees are treated better than the bottom ones. From their perspective, the top employees get the plum assignments, they receive the largest awards, and so on. Over time, the union begins to believe that management is rewarding its favorites, while from management’s point of view, it is simply rewarding its best employees. Since the core constituency feels that they also deserve to be treated well, a natural tension develops between labor and management.

The best way to deal with this situation is to follow the principles described earlier in the book. That is, make sure your systems are applied as reliably as possible. In this way you will be able to demonstrate that everyone is being treated equally, and that people are being rewarded based on performance, not favoritism. The second thing you need to do is to try and pull up as many people as possible. If you do this, you’ll develop more stars and reduce the number of people who feel that they have been treated poorly. Moreover, the union will be able to demonstrate to its core constituency that it is doing its job because management is treating everyone fairly.

Hot-button issues are situations that the union has seen happen over and over again that have frustrated it to the point where it has become overly sensitive to them. They generally involve a practice or practices that reek of favoritism, reflect a lack of concern for the union and/or the bargaining unit, or give the impression that management is making a series of secret decisions that will ultimately harm people. The more you understand these issues and try to keep them from developing, the better will be your relationship with the union. Here’s an instance.

Every year, a group of predominantly white senior management officials would get together and go motorcycling in the desert. African-American employees were not invited, nor did they participate in this annual event. Over time, African-American employees began to refer to this event as an example of racism, and it became a hot-button issue with the union, which was comprised mainly of African-American employees.

Although I did not personally believe that there was anything sinister going on in this social activity, I could see the symbolism and understand why the African-American employees were upset. Accordingly, I suggested to the organizers of this event that they either make it more inclusive or try some other activity.

In a similar scenario, prior to my arrival, many of our management officials used to keep their doors closed for hours at a time. It made the employees nervous and gave them the impression that secret decisions were being made by a few people in smoke-filled rooms. When people asked the union what was going on, it had no answers, which made it look weak and ineffective.

In reality, the doors were closed because the management officials were looking for some private time to get their work done, but this was lost on everyone. As time went by, it became a hot button for our employees and the union. I addressed this situation by announcing that my door would stay open except when I was involved in a sensitive personnel issue, and I expected our supervisors to take the same approach. By opening up our doors, we gave the employees the sense that we were becoming a more open and inclusive organization.

The other issue that seems to drive union officials is respect. If they feel respected, they will be much more willing to work with you than if they feel as though they are an afterthought. Unfortunately, far too often, they feel disrespected by management, and that seems to set the tone for the relationship. This perception is often fueled by events happening that they are unaware of, by management discussing changes with them after the fact, and so on.

Imagine if you were the union president and constantly felt like you were behind the eight ball. Every time a bargaining unit member came to you to discuss a particular issue and you were unaware of it, you would look silly, and you would begin to feel resentful. In short, you would think that management doesn’t respect you, and you would treat managers accordingly.

Treating the union with respect is not difficult; in fact, it is easy and is the right thing to do. If you learn to think like the union, you will understand just how important it is to treat the union with respect and will do just that.

Here’s one more story to illustrate the point: I always tried to make it a point to acknowledge our union president’s position and accomplishments and to treat her with respect. Whenever we had an awards breakfast, I would always introduce her to the group, and emphasize her importance to the organization. Whenever a VIP came to our office, I made sure I introduced her to the VIP. Whenever I wrote an article for our all-employee newsletter, I tried to acknowledge the union and our employees in some way. Because I knew that the union officials craved respect, I made sure that I tried to give it to them, while, of course, expecting them to respond in kind.

Key Points to Remember

• Treat the union well; recognize that there are all types of union officials, and adjust your strategy accordingly.

• Don’t take things personally.

• Understand the ramifications of any labor agreement you may sign.

• When responding to a labor issue, always remember that several potential audiences may read your response.