March 3 - 4, 2014
Human Resource Services
APAC/CUHRE
2014 Spring Event
March 3, 2014
Agenda
• 10:30 - 11:00am
Welcome, Logistics, Opening
Remarks, Introductions
• 11:00 - Noon
Tuition Exchange
• Noon - 1:00pm
Lunch
• 1:00 - 2:00pm
Group Discussion
• 2:00 – 3:15pm
Immigration
• 3:15 – 3:30pm
Break
• 3:30 – 5:00pm
Break Out Sessions
• 5:00 – 5:30pm
Informal Networking
• 5:30 – 8:00pm
Evening Mixer
Tuition Exchange Program
Angel Kwolek-Folland
Associate Provost for Academic & Faculty Affairs
Ileana McCray
Sr. Administrative Assistant and UF TEP Liaison
TEP Inc. Institutions
Type (Carnegie Groupings)
Number
% of Category
8
1%
• Doctoral Research Universities
51
47%
• Masters Colleges & Universities
272
72%
• Baccalaureate – Arts & Sciences
133
58%
• Baccalaureate – Diverse Fields
101
42%
• Specialized, Associate & Other
41
Public Institutions
Private Institutions
16%
TEP Inc. Fees
Membership Fees - 2014
Initiation Fee
$350 (one-time charge)
Annual Dues
$500
Participation Fees
$35 per year for each Export
exchange scholar sponsored.
TEP participating schools in
Florida
• 17 schools participate, 2 public (UF,
UNF)
• University of Florida is the largest TEP
participating institution in US, has been
a member for 40+ years.
• 10% of UF TEP applicants receive TEP.
• UF’s highest number of
Exports/Imports (2009) averaged 25/31
respectively.
Five Year Historical Semester Balance for UF
Import
Semesters
Historical Balance
(Including 2008 2009)
Export
Semesters
+/-
1,083
1,075
8
2009 - 2010
46
46
0
2010 - 2011
47
38
9
2011 - 2012
38
40
-2
2012 - 2013
24
28
-4
2013 - 2014
14
24
-10
5 Year Subtotal
169
176
-7
Grand Total
1,252
1,251
1
UF Program Financials
• Charge to UF Employee: $5000/AY
• Subsidy from Provost’s office (for outof-state tuition): varies
• Late fee to UF Employee: $250
• UF Undergrad tuition for Fall 2013 for
24 credits/year: $3600
Pros vs Cons for UF
• Pros
• Provides a low cost tuition option for faculty and
staff.
• Access to private/costly institutions.
• Seniority pool varies each year.
Pros vs Cons, continued
• Cons
• Seniority very high at UF, average 20-25 years
• Budget cuts limited amount of import slots
• Tuition increases limit slots for imports,
especially for out-of-state.
• Administrative time to manage program
averages .30 FTE of staff and admin/year.
• Out-of-state tuition for imports $20,400/year
for 2013-2014.
Institutional Management of the
Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tuition goes up
Out-of-State tuition cost
Fees
2 Semesters; no Summer except Innovation Academy
Export Institution can charge employee’s for participation
in the program
Number of credits students (Imports) can take per
semester
Whether to allow graduate courses
Program lengths (greater # of credits needed or Dual
Degree programs).
Late fees for Employees/Exports
Break for Lunch
Group Discussion
Paula Varnes Fussell
Vice President
Human Resource Services
Group Discussion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Health and Wellness Activities
Affordable Care Act
Minimum Wage Increases
Allocation Funds vs Enrollment
Dual Career Programs
VEVRAA and Section 503
Break
Break Out Sessions
CUHRE, APAC, Attorneys
Rooms A and Ballroom
Informal Networking
Evening Mixer
Outdoor Pavilion
(Straughn IFAS center)
Wireless Internet Connection
To connect to the wireless internet
connection:
1. Choose the “ufvistor” from the list of
available WI-FI Networks on your device
2. Open a new Internet browser window and
follow the prompts
If you have any problems, please let us know.
APAC/CUHRE
2014 Spring Event
March 4, 2014
Agenda
• 8:00 – 8:30am
Breakfast
• 8:30 – 10:30am
Collective Bargaining and Status Updates
• 10:30 – 10:45am
Break
• 10:45 – 11:15am
Trends in Current CBAs
• 11:15am – Noon
Legislative Update
• Noon – 1:00pm
Lunch
• 1:00 – 200pm
Onboarding
• 2:00pm
Wrap Up and Closing Discussions
OUTLINE OF TOPICS
Collective Bargaining Updates
Trends at the Negotiating Table
Legislative Updates
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Waiving the Special Magistrate
Refusal to Ratify/Self-Help
Surveying Employees for Evaluations
Financial Urgency
Collective Bargaining Tips
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Waiving the Special
Magistrate
IMPASSE PROCESS
The Special Magistrate
To Use or Not to Use?
• Parties may agree to waive the Special Magistrate
Hearing
• Proceed directly to a hearing before the legislative
body
• Both parties must agree
• Must be in writing
IMPASSE PROCESS
The Special Magistrate
To Use or Not to Use?
• Reasons to bypass Special Magistrate
•
•
•
•
Cost
Time
Number of Issues Involved
Political Reasons
• Employer’s best interest is to bypass Special
Magistrate in most cases
• Difficult to get union to agree
IMPASSE PROCESS
The Special Magistrate
To Use or Not to Use?
• Reasons not to bypass Special Magistrate
• Special Magistrate’s Recommendation may be
helpful:
•
•
•
•
Neutral perspective
Public perception
Bargaining unit employees
Legislative body
• May narrow issues
Changing Proposals at
Impasse
CHANGING PROPOSALS AT IMPASSE
• Issue: Can you change or introduce new
proposals at impasse?
• Port Orange I – Port Orange Professional
Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local
3118 v. City of Port Orange, 37 FPER 99
(2011), aff’d per curiam, 86 So.3d 1121
(Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
PORT ORANGE I
•
Facts
Parties were negotiating a successor agreement, and the City was
seeking to reduce its pension costs
•
Reached an agreement, but it was not ratified by the Union
•
Parties resumed negotiations – the City realized it could not impose
pension increases without employee agreement, so it proposed a 6%
wage reduction instead
•
City declared impasse over several articles including Wages and
Pensions
•
At the Special Magistrate hearing, the City proposed, for the first
time, to reduce starting and top out pay by 6%
PORT ORANGE I
Facts
• Parties filed several ULPs against each other, including
several issues
• In part, the Union alleged that (1) the City unlawfully
substituted a 6% wage reduction in lieu of pension
contribution increases and (2) unlawfully proposed a 6%
decrease in starting pay and top out pay for the first time at
the special magistrate hearing
• Hearing Officer concluded that it was not unlawful to
propose a 6% wage reduction in lieu of the pension reform,
but the City committed a ULP by proposing the 6% decrease
in starting and top out pay for the first time at the hearing
PORT ORANGE I
Outcome
• PERC ruled that the 6% reduction in starting and top
out pay was not a ULP because the parties are allowed
to change their positions at any point during impasse
provided that the amended proposals do not touch on
a topic that was not previously negotiated at the
bargaining table
• PERC affirmed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that
proposing a 6% wage reduction in lieu of a pension
contribution increase was not unlawful
• The First DCA affirmed per curiam
Refuse to Ratify / Self-Help
REFUSE TO RATIFY / SELF-HELP
• Issue: Union refuses to ratify
• Port Orange II – City of Port Orange v. Port
Orange Professional Fire Fighters
Association, IAFF, Local 3118, 38 FPER 244
(2011)
• Daytona Beach Fire Rescue Local 1162,
IAFF v. City of Daytona Beach, 39 FPER 28
(2012), aff’d per curiam, 121 So.3d 1058
(Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
PORT ORANGE II
Facts
• After PERC issued its order in Port Orange I,
the City revised its proposed impasse
agreement to the Union for ratification
• The Union refused to sign and submit for
ratification, claiming confusing over the
effective date of the 6% wage reduction
PORT ORANGE II
The Unfair Labor Practice Charge
• The City filed a ULP alleging that it was unlawful for the
Union to refuse to sign and submit the agreement for
ratification
• The Hearing Officer found that the Union’s refusal was
unlawful
• PERC affirmed, citing to City of Hollywood v. Hollywood
Municipal Employees, Local 2432, AFSCME, 468 So.2d 1036
(Fla. 1st DCA 1985) that the purpose of Section 447.403(4)(e),
Florida Statutes, is to bring collective bargaining to an end at
a point certain
DAYTONA BEACH
Facts
• Negotiation for a successor agreement were unsuccessful for
three years in a row, the parties maintained status quo
• The City declared impasse and the parties went to a Special
Magistrate hearing
• Union accepted recommendations on all issues, and the City
rejected the recommendations on 4 issues
• City Council unanimously accepted the City’s position on all
remaining disputed issues
DAYTONA BEACH
Facts
• City sent the agreement to the Union, including the
agreed upon issues and legislatively resolved issues
• The letter said that the Union’s failure to sign and
return would be considered a refusal to send the
agreement to ratification
• Union did not sign or return
• City implemented the agreement without a
ratification vote
DAYTONA BEACH
The Unfair Labor Practice
• The Union filed a ULP alleging that the City
bargained in bad faith by imposing the
legislatively resolved impasse issues without
a ratification vote
• Hearing Officer held that the City’s sole
remedy was to file an unfair labor practice
and the City could not engage in self-help or
establish a time limit for the Union’s
ratification
DAYTONA BEACH
Final Order
• Reversed the Hearing Officer and held that a local government is
“authorized to implement those legislatively resolved wages,
hours, or terms and conditions of employment for its employees
represented by a union after a special magistrate proceeding
when the union refuses to submit to the employees for
ratification a signed copy of a complete agreement containing
the resolved articles and the tentative agreements.”
• PERC receded from its “overly broad” comments in
Communications Workers of America, Local 3170 v. City of
Gainesville, 20 FPER 25226 (1994) that “a ratification vote is a
condition precedent to implementation of legislatively resolved
impasse issues.”
DAYTONA BEACH
Outcome
• This achieved legislative intent that “lack of final
resolution of a bargaining impasse… creates
potential turmoil” and that the impasse procedure
was designed by the Legislature “to provide an end
to a potentially endless bargaining process.” City of
Hollywood
• Limitation – Self-Help when the Union refuses to
ratify
• Affirmed per curiam by the Fifth DCA
The Ruse
THE RUSE
• Issue: Union agrees to adverse proposals to remove
them from the impasse process
• Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1593 v.
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, 39 FPER 175
(2012), on appeal docketed at 2D12-6033 (Fla. 2nd
DCA)
• Naples I - Professional Firefighters of Naples, I.A.F.F. v.
City of Naples, 39 FPER 329 (2013), aff’d per curiam,
unpublished at 2013 WL 6869087 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013)
• Communications Workers of America v. School District
of Indian River County, 40 FPER 32 (2013)
ATU v. HART
FACTS
• The parties began negotiating a successor agreement in June
2010 for a contract that expired in September 2010
• After 8 months of negotiations, HART declared impasse on
six articles
• The parties went to a Special Magistrate hearing –
recommendations were mostly favorable to the Union
• The Union accepted all six recommendations, HART accepted
three and rejected three others
ATU v. HART
FACTS
•
Scheduled a Legislative Body hearing
•
Immediately prior to hearing, the Union’s attorney told HART it would agree
to its proposals on the remaining issues, did not sign any TA but told the
legislative body that they had reached a tentative agreement
•
Union conducted ratification vote – contract not ratified
•
HART re-scheduled the legislative body hearing, Union claimed they had to
return to bargaining accoding to Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1701 v.
Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36 FPER 453 (2010), aff’d
per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
•
HART conducted legislative body hearing, Union did not attend and HART
imposed all 6 issues, Union refused to send to ratification
ATU v. HART
The Unfair Labor Practice Charges
• Union filed ULP alleging that HART bargained
in bad faith by refusing to resume
negotiations after the failed ratification vote,
by conducting a legislative body hearing
instead, and by implementing the articles
resolved at the hearing
• HART filed ULP alleging that the Union
committed an unfair labor practice by
refusing to conduct a ratification vote
ATU v. HART
Hearing Officer’s Order
• HART committed unfair labor practice because it bargained in
bad faith by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed
ratification vote, by conducting a legislative body hearing
instead, and by implementing the articles resolved at the
hearing
• Hearing Officer relied on Amalgamated Transit Union, Local
1701 v. Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36
FPER 453 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA
2012) – when the agreement was not ratified, the parties were
required to resume bargaining
• Union did not commit an unfair labor practice by refusing to
conduct a ratification vote
ATU v. HART
PERC Final Order
• Sarasota was not applicable – in Sarasota, parties were ordered back
to bargaining because of confusion over what issues were at impasse,
no confusion in this case – here there was no confusion, so there was
no need to resume bargaining
• Relied on City of Hollywood – The purpose of the impasse resolution
process is to bring collective bargaining to a conclusion
• Requiring the parties to return to bargaining would lead to a never
ending cycle of negotiations
• Because the Union refused to submit the agreement to ratification,
HART could engage in self-help and implement the agreement
ATU v. HART
PERC Final Order
• HART did not commit an unfair labor practice
• The Union did not commit an unfair labor
practice – no allegation of improper motive
• Pending on appeal in the Second DCA
NAPLES I
FACTS
• In IAFF v. Naples, the parties began negotiating a successor
agreement in June 2011 for a contract expiring in September
2011
• After 13 bargaining sessions, the parties reached impasse on
two issues: pension reform & safety/health article
• Union refused to agree to pension reform, City would not
agree to proposed changes to safety/health article
• During negotiations, City offered wage increase and holiday
pay to entice Union to agree
NAPLES I
FACTS
• City’s position at impasse was more drastic cuts than
proposed during negotiations and did not include a wage
increase or holiday pay
• Union refused all the way up to the Special Magistrate
Hearing
• After City’s presentation at the Special Magistrate Hearing,
the Union suddenly agreed to City’s pension proposal – did
not condition its acceptance on wages or holiday pay
• The City refused to accept the Union’s purported
“Agreement”
NAPLES I
The Unfair Labor Practice Charges
• Union filed ULP alleging that City bargained
in bad faith by rejecting its own proposal
• City filed ULP alleging that the Union
bargained in bad faith because its intent in
agreeing to the City’s proposal was not to
reach an agreement, but instead to derail the
impasse resolution process, avoid imposition
of pension reform, and perpetuate the status
quo
NAPLES I
The Outcome
• Union bargained in bad faith
• “In sum, Local 2174’s motivation in accepting the City’s
pension proposal was to remove the City’s proposed
pension plan from the impasse resolution process. Local
2174’s motivation was not to reach an accord with the City.
Rather, Local 2174’s purpose in agreeing with the pension
plan was to derail the impasse resolution process and
perpetuate the status quo.”
• Union “knew or should have known that the employees
will not ratify the contract based on their self-interest.”
• “This one instance of bad faith so permeated the entire
process that it rendered the impasse resolution process
meaningless.”
NAPLES I
The Outcome
• City did not bargain in bad faith
• Because the Union acted in bad faith by
purportedly accepting the City’s proposal, the
parties remained at impasse and the City did not
act unlawfully by continuing the impasse
resolution process.
• “The City assumed the risk that it was acting
lawfully when it rejected Local 2174’s acceptance
of the pension proposal.”
• Second DCA affirmed per curiam
INDIAN RIVER
Facts
• Parties reached impasse over health insurance two days before the hearing, the Union agreed to
the District’s proposal
• The Special Magistrate hearing was cancelled, but
the ratification vote failed by a vote of 226 to 3
• The District resumed the impasse process via ATU
v. HART and returned to the Special Magistrate
hearing, but the Union refused to participate
INDIAN RIVER
The Unfair Labor Practice
• The parties filed several unfair labor practices
against each other
• The District alleged that the Union unlawfully
agreed to the District’s insurance proposal as a ruse
to thwart the collective bargaining process and
intentionally avoid finality in negotiations
• Union alleged that District was required to resume
bargaining, not return to point of impasse after the
failed ratification vote (Sarasota)
INDIAN RIVER
Outcome
• The Hearing Officer concluded that the Union unlawfully agreed to
the District’s insurance proposal to thwart the bargaining process
• “The CWA agreed to the District’s health insurance proposal knowing
with virtual certainty that the unit employees would not ratify the
proposal and with the intent of avoiding finality in the bargaining
process and extending the status quo indefinitely. This conduct
constitutes a failure to bargain in good faith because it makes a
mockery of the impasse resolution process and renders it
meaningless.”
• Also reiterated that Parties may return to point of impasse after failed
ratification (ATU v. HART)
• PERC affirmed
OTHER CASES
• City of Hialeah v. International Ass’n of Fire
Fighters, Local 1102, 38 FPER 111 (2011)
• After over two years of negotiations and
impasse proceedings, a Special Magistrate
sided with the City on every issue at impasse,
but the Union did not file any rejections.
Ratification failed by a vote of 177 to 1 and
after ULP proceedings concluding the Union
had not bargained in bad faith, the parties
were forced to go back to negotiations.
OTHER CASES
• International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 2622 v.
City of Jacksonville Beach, 39 FPER 283 (2013)
• Over the course of negotiations, the City declared
impasse three times, and each of the first two times,
the Union “accepted” the City’s proposal before the
special magistrate, and the agreement was
overwhelmingly rejected by the bargaining unit.
• After the third time, both parties filed ULPs.
• PERC held that the Union did not bargain in bad faith,
but took note of its recent statement in ATU v. HART
and cautioned that its dismissal of this case should
not be read “to countenance a never-ending cycle of
negotiations.”
• It’s decision was based on a lack of evidence showing
bad faith.
OTHER CASES
• Naples II – Professional Fire Fighters of Naples, IAFF,
Local 2174 v. City of Naples, CA-2013-054 (January 13,
2014) (not final)
• After first ULP hearing, the Special Magistrate issued an
order recommending the City’s position on the pension
issue because the Union had not made a presentation.
• Anticipating that the Union would not reject the Special
Magistrate’s recommendation, and because the Union’s
position remained unclear after additional negotiations,
the City rejected the recommendation of its own position
to give the Union an opportunity to present its position to
the legislative body.
• The Hearing Officer found that the City’s rejection
demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds
and was not unlawful.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Employee Communication
The Fine Line of Direct Dealing
SURVEYING EMPLOYEES
• A public employer commits an unfair labor
practice if it negotiates directly with the
bargaining unit employees.
• “Direct dealing” is prohibited because it
can undermine the exclusive status of the
employee organization.
• What about seeking faculty input on the
criteria for the award of continuing
contracts?
SURVEYING EMPLOYEES
• PERC does allow employers to communicate
with employees so long as such expression
contains no promise of benefit or threat of
reprisal or force. See 447.501(3), F.S.
• The communication with employees must be
informational only.
• Ask whether the communication has the
effect of enlisting employees to withdraw or
abandon their support of the certified
bargaining agent.
SURVEYING EMPLOYEES
• You decide – Ok to seek faculty input?
• Compare Duval Teachers United v. School
District of Duval County, 36 FPER 62 (2010)
– Superintendent emailed a survey to all District
employees, including unit members, asking their
opinion on how District should prioritize
potential budget cuts.
– PERC ruled that communication was lawful.
– Requested information. Did not request union
members to bargain with Superintendent
instead of Union.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
FINANCIAL URGENCY
FINANCIAL URGENCY
• First DCA and Fourth DCA Clash over
Standard Applied to Establish Financial
Urgency
• City of Miami,118 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2013)
• City of Hollywood, -- So. 3d – (Fla. 4th
DCA Jan. 8, 2014)
FINANCIAL URGENCY
• Debate Over the Second Prong of the Chiles
Test  Authority of gov’t to modify a
contract and violate the union’s right to
collectively bargain
• First DCA – Local gov’t not required to
demonstrate that funds are not available
from any other possible source
• Fourth DCA – Claimed First DCA modified
Chiles test. District court cannot modify Fla.
Supreme Court holding.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Bargaining Tips
BARGAINING TIPS
• Package Proposals
• During Negotiations
• Throughout Impasse Process
• Ratification Letter (Daytona Beach)
• Require response
• Set deadline
• Self-help if Union refuses to conduct ratification
• Return to point of impasse after failed ratification
(Port Orange, HART)
BARGAINING TIPS
• Do not accept a bad faith acceptance (Naples, Indian River)
• Rejecting your own proposal (Naples 2)
• If Union will not reject an adverse recommendation
• Very limited circumstances – works better with a package
proposal
• Change position at impasse (Port Orange, Naples)
• Rescind concessions
• One year contract
CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Trends at the Table
• Bonus Payments After the Revision to
Section 215.425, F.S.
• Retirement and Pension
• Cost of Health Insurance
• Evaluation Programs
CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Trends at the Table
• Limits on the Ability to Grieve
• Release Time for Union Activity
• Overtime and Additional Pay
• Promotion for the At-Will
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
• “Student Success Act” – SB 736
• Proposed Legislative Budget Request
• DOMA and Windsor v. US
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
“Student Success Act”
•
Senate Bill 736
Comprehensive overhaul of K-12
education
•
•
Applicable to DRS Schools
STUDENT SUCCESS ACT
• Sweeping reforms
– Teachers evaluated on a scale of four
performance levels (highly effective,
effective, needs improvement,
unsatisfactory)
– At least half of evaluation based on student
learning growth
– Eliminated tenure, annual contracts only
Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526
(Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D13-3583 (Fla.
1st DCA 2013)
• Six individuals filed a constitutional
challenge to the law
• Arguments
(1) Facially unconstitutional infringement on
collective bargaining rights
(2) Unlawfully delegates legislative authority to
the State Board of Education to define the
numerical scores representing the four
performance levels
Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526
(Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D13-3583 (Fla.
1st DCA 2013)
• Result?
– Leon County Circuit Court rejected Plaintiffs’
arguments and upheld law as constitutional
• Plaintiffs’ appealed
– Appeal limited to unlawful delegation
argument
• Oral argument is scheduled for March 25,
2014
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
Pay Increases for Faculty &
Staff
Legislative Appropriation 1950A
Base Salary lesser than $40,000  $1,400 Raise
Base Salary greater than $40,000  $1,000 Raise
PAY INCREASES
• Additionally, in June of 2014, $600 bonus
available to employees from special Legislative
appropriation
• Top 35% of eligible permanent employees
• Baseline requirements – Section 110.1245(2)
Florida Statutes
• Employed prior to July 1 of that year
• Employed for 6 consecutives months
• No sustained disciplinary actions in past year
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
DOMA
United States v. Windsor (June 26, 3013)
Issue: Constitutionality of DOMA’s provision
denying federal benefits to same-sex partners.
State Law Determines Benefits
DOMA & DOMESTIC PARTNERS
• Origin of Domestic Partner Benefit Plans
• Windsor’s Impact
• Wal-Mart Will Offer
Domestic Partner
Benefits
Employers Who Will Change
Plans
Yes (29%)
No (79%)
• Future Still Unclear
Thank You!!!
Michael Mattimore, Esq.
906 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(850) 561-3503
mmattimore@anblaw.com
Break for Lunch
What's in it for YOU! Electronic Onboarding
Melissa Curry
Director
Recruitment & Staffing
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Impact of Electronic Onboarding
Avoiding Risk
Gaining Efficiencies
Improving Brand Image
University of Florida – GatorStart
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key Drivers
Value Gained
A Look at the Electronic Process
Support of Legislative Updates
Challenges with Remote Employees
Support of Foreign Nationals
Impact on the University
Impact of Electronic Onboarding
Reduced Risk
• Rapidly Changing Environment & Growing
Complex Legislation
– Compliance with Federal Requirements
• Increasingly High Fines
• Proper Documentation Management of
Foreign Nationals
• Short Staffed & Improperly Trained Staff
Results in Errors, Incomplete or Not
Retained Critical Documents
© Equifax Confidential and
Proprietary
InefficienciesManual Onboarding
If error
Applicant
accepts job offer
Information is
manually
entered
New hire
packet is
assembled
Manual Onboarding
Corporate HR is
hopeful that
compliance is not
an issue…
Packet is mailed
or delivered on
first day
New hire
completes
paperwork onsite
or mails back
If error
Hard copy is
saved and
appropriate
copies given to
new hire
Manually enter
data into payroll
and other HR
system
If error
Manager
reviews all
documentation
If error
Location
collects the
completed
forms
Improved EfficienciesElectronic Onboarding
Applicant accepts
job offer. Data
is sent to
Onboarding Solution.
A new hire packet is
electronically created
pre-populated with
new hire data.
New hire completes
documentation quickly
on-line and can
print “smart forms”
Data is automatically checked
for completeness and
accuracy. Electronically
stored and data exported into
appropriate HR systems.
Improved Brand Image
• Reduction in time spent on manual
processes allows for more focused
attention on employee socialization,
which may increase retention.
Aberdeen Research 2011
• 90% of organizations believe employees
make decision to stay based on
impression of the company in the first
year. 2013 Aberdeen Group
University of Florida – GatorStart
• CUPA-HR 2012HR Innovation Award
• Awarded to innovations that advance and
contribute to the overall excellence of the HR
Profession.
• 2013 Davis Productivity Award
• Awarded to state employees and work units for
innovation, creativity, and work product that
significantly increases productivity in the delivery
of state services and products
About the University of Florida:
• Major research university enrolling 50,000 students
• 26,000 employees
• 10,000 new hires annually
• Employees located in every state, however, 95% of
employees are located in Gainesville, FL
• Central HR staff of 85
• Decentralized with approval workflows
• PeopleSoft 9.1
Key Drivers Leading to an Electronic
Process
• Introduction of the electronic I-9 segmented
the hiring process so UF continued
completing the paper form.
• Implementation of E-Verify forced
reconsideration but still looking for a
comprehensive onboarding process.
• Then we were introduced to Equifax
Workforce Solutions electronic onboarding.
Value Gained With an Electronic
Process
• Original project plan included converting payroll forms to an
online system to improve the time from offer to paycheck for
our new employees.
• During planning, the project team saw an opportunity to
leverage technology.
• State of the art onboarding process.
• Improve their first impressions of the university and provide
them with helpful information regarding their first day of
employment.
• Goal was to work with Training and Organizational Development
to create a multi-tiered onboarding process.
© Equifax Confidential and Proprietary
New Screen Shots
Let’s walk through the process…
New Screen Shots
New Screen Shots
http://youtu.be/iveGplJSGJ0?hd=1
New Screen Shots
New Screen Shots
New Screen Shots
New Screen Shots
http://youtu.be/yUSsef1FoCU?hd=1
Our vision continues to evolve…..
New Legislation Quickly Supported in an
Electronic Process
• ACA Notifications
• All New Hires within 14 Days of Start
• Unique Delivery Requirements
• 503 Self-Identification
• Government Contractors
• Pre-Hire & New Hire after March 2014
• All employees by March 2015
• Every 5 Years
Challenges with
Remote Employees
• Growing number of remote employees
• Growing enrollment through online
courses
• More telecommuters
• Access to computers
• Addition of Extension Campuses
Support of Foreign Nationals
• Foreign Nationals
• “SSN Applied for State”
• Breaks Automated Processes
• Electronic Process Manages the Exceptions
Positive Impact on the Organization
• New hires love it!
• Ease of use and online paperwork completed in 10
to 15 minutes on average.
• “Smart” Forms eliminate paperwork errors.
• Workload reduction for hiring managers and HR.
• Improved I-9 and E-Verify compliance--slowly.
• Ability to engage employee in our culture and
community from the start.
• Average time saved per hire is 1.5 hours with an
estimated salary savings of $360,000 annually.
*1.5 hours per hire @ $24 per hour, 10,000 hires annually
Wrap Up and Closing
Discussions