Drafting Collective Bargaining Agreements
For Public Sector Agencies
Lisa Boggess
Labor Analyst
King County Labor Relations
Overview: Structure and Content
The public employee labor contract is the fruit of months of hard work spent negotiating,
posturing, proposing, hammering out language, revising and, finally, shaking hands over a deal.
Long before the final provisions make it to paper, the process of crafting the content must begin.
The first step in this process is to understand the law behind the negotiation and drafting of
public sector collective bargaining agreements.
Protection of the organizing and bargaining rights of employees forms the basis for labor
law. However, the law cannot dictate the terms of a particular contract nor resolve all issues
between the parties. Instead, it provides a framework for the parties to build a document that
represents the negotiated agreements between the parties.1
In Washington State, the formation of the structure for public sector collective bargaining
agreements begins with the statutory authority of the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining
Act, Chapter 41.56 Revised Code of Washington. Under this Act, a public employer has a duty
to bargain with the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.2 Under the Washington
Administrative Code, the determination as to when a duty to bargain exists is a mixed question
of law and fact for the Public Employee Relations Commission to decide.3
The Commission applies a balancing test in deciding whether a duty to bargain exists by
using two principal considerations: (1) The extent to which managerial action impacts the wages,
hours, or working conditions of employees, and (2) the extent to which the subject lies “at the
core of entrepreneurial control” or is a management prerogative.4
1
Fecteau, Michelle, “Legal Boundaries of Collective Bargaining,” Labor Studies Center, Wayne State University
(Retrieved on April 3, 2014), www.clas.wayne.edu/Multimedia/lsc/files/collectivebargaing.pdf
2
RCW 41.56.030(4)
3
WAC 391-45-550
4
City of Seattle, Decision 11588-A (PECB, 2013)
2|Page
Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining
Where a duty to bargain exists, the parties must bargain mandatory subjects.5 An
employer may not enact a change in a mandatory bargaining subject without providing prior
notice to the union and an opportunity to bargain the proposed change.6 Mandatory issues of
bargaining usually include, but are not limited to, matters relating to wages, hours and working
conditions. This would include such items as shift differentials, incentive pay, overtime
premiums, holidays, vacations, work schedules, breaks, work rules, safety practices, disciplinary
and grievance procedures, insurance packages, pension plans and other benefits.7 Parties must
negotiate any proposed change to a mandatory subject until they reach an agreement, withdraw
the proposal, or exhaust any required impasse resolution procedures.8
Permissive Subjects of Bargaining
In the public sector, a permissive subject of bargaining is one that is not mandatory under
federal, state or local law, but that may be negotiated. These subjects are ones that may be
discussed, but cannot be insisted on to the point of impasse. Generally, these subjects are not
mandatory because they only indirectly affect the employment relationship, and do not
significantly influence working conditions.9 Refusal to bargain a permissive subject will not be
considered justification for an unfair labor practice.10 Permissive subjects may be ones that only
indirectly affect the employment relationship and do not have a substantial effect on working
5
National Public Employer Labor Relations Association (2013). Academy I: The Foundation of Labor Relations,
Section 1 “Statutes that Govern the Public Sector’s Duty to Bargain,” p. 8.
6
Austin, Matt, “What are Mandatory, Permissive, and Illegal Subjects of Bargaining?” (August 15, 2012), Matt
Austin Labor Law, http://mattaustinlaborlaw.com/tag/permissive-subjects-of-bargaining/
7
Rainsberger, Paul, “Federal Labor Laws,” University of Missouri Labor Education Program (Revised, July 2008),
http://labored.missouri.edu/research/pdf/2005-16.pdf
8
NPELRA Academy I, Section 1, p. 8-9
9
Ibid, at 9.
10
Fecteau, Michelle, “Legal Boundaries of Collective Bargaining.”
3|Page
conditions. 11Examples of permissive subjects of bargaining may include internal union matters,
benefits of retired employees, pre-employment drug testing and ground rules for negotiations.
A gray area exists between where mandatory subjects end and permissive ones begin.
Without proper experience, it may be difficult for the employer’s negotiator to realize when they
are being forced to bargain over permissive subjects.12 In the majority of states, a public sector
labor relations agency 13 hears disputes concerning alleged statute violations. These agencies
provide guidance handed down in the form of case law, and should be a reference point when
there is ambiguity over whether a duty to bargain exists.
Illegal Subjects of Bargaining
The bottom line regarding an illegal subject of bargaining is that it is unenforceable.14
Beyond that, illegal subjects may not be negotiated between the parties, even if both want to,
regardless of the enforceability. Any provision that violates federal, state, county or municipal
law would fall into this category. For instance, parties to a collective bargaining agreement could
not include a provision that discriminates against employees because of race, creed, sex, etc.15
The Four Segments of a Collective Bargaining Agreement
While mandatory subjects of bargaining comprise the underpinnings of the labor contract,
the architectural structure of the document consists of four basic elements.16
1.
The relationship between the parties. This is the portion that formalizes the
`parties’ mutual recognition of each others’ rights and responsibilities.17 Included in this segment
11
NPELRA Academy I, Section 1, p. 9
Austin, Matt, “What are Mandatory, Permissive, and Illegal Subjects of Bargaining?” Matt Austin Labor Law
(August 15, 2012), http://mattaustinlaborlaw.com/tag/permissive-subjects-of-bargaining/
13
In Washington State, the Public Employment Relations Commission is the agency responsible for resolving
disputes involving most public employers and employees, and the unions that represent those employees.
14
Austin, Matt, “What are Mandatory, Permissive, and Illegal Subjects of Bargaining?”
15
Fecteau, Michelle, “Legal Boundaries of Collective Bargaining.”
16
NPELRA Academy I, Section 1, p. 16, and “The Labor Contract” presentation (9/11/2013).
17
Ibid.
12
4|Page
are provisions addressing union recognition, management rights, release time, access to work
locations, union dues and other related clauses. Union recognition and management rights
clauses will be discussed more specifically below.
2.
Wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. The next
portion of the labor contract is where the guarantees and limitations of all terms and conditions
of employment are identified and established. This segment contains provisions relating to wage
rates, bonuses, premiums, overtime compensation, allowances for work related expenses, hours
of work, probationary periods, personnel records, layoff procedure, policies, and paid and unpaid
leaves.18
This portion of the contract is where the economic issues primarily reside, and it is
crucial that the employer’s negotiating team has an accurate understanding of the economic
realities of the workplace. Attention should also be given to those proposals that are primarily
operational in nature as well. While often categorized as "non-economic" bargaining subjects,
operational changes can have significant cost implications. The labor relations team and the
finance department should work closely with each other and with subject matter expert(s) in
order to identify any hidden costs or savings, or both, and develop documentation that supports
this analysis.19
3.
The appellate or enforcement process. Provisions in this portion of the contract
provide for proper administration of the contract by spelling out appeal procedures for resolving
disputes, whether it be related to discipline or contract interpretation.20
18
NPELRA Academy I, Section 1, p. 16-17 and “The Labor Contract” presentation (9/11/2013)
Broth, Mark T. “In Labor Negotiations, Public Employers Need Finance Directors on the Team,” New Hampshire
Town and City (March/April 2013), available at: http://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/495
20
NPELRA Academy I, Section 1, p. 16 and “The Labor Contract” presentation (9/11/2013)
19
5|Page
This segment should lay the foundation for the grievance procedure. First, it should
provide the definition of a grievance. Customarily, a grievance is a complaint that the employer
has violated one or more of the terms of the agreement. The section should describe in detail the
grievance procedure: what a grievance shall contain, which provisions of the agreement were
supposedly violated, the "statute of limitations" on any grievance, and the steps required once a
valid grievance has been filed. The negotiations between management and the union will usually
lead to the formation of a procedure for appeal. This may include a binding arbitration provision,
as well as a promise that the employee will be allowed union representation during the grievance
process.21
4.
Legal provisions. This segment addresses unforeseen events and emergencies, as
well as changes in the law. Duration, savings (severability), modification, determination of a
governing body, zipper, indemnification and waiver clauses are some examples of provisions
found under this category.22
Special Contract Clauses
There are special contract clauses contained within the four segments that should be
addressed separately due to the significance they bring to the agreement.
Term of the agreement (Duration). This clause defines the time period that the
agreement is effective. This part of the agreement may also specify the means of its renewal.
However, whether provided in specific terms or not, it remains in effect until replaced by the
new modified terms. The parties are free to negotiate a collective agreement with any duration
they choose provided it meets the requirements of state law, which varies among states.23 In
21
Warner, Mark, “Collective Bargaining Agreements – Key Provisions,” EzineArticles.com. Available at:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Collective-Bargaining-Agreements---Key-Provisions&id=1540184
22
NPELRA Academy I, Section 1, p. 16.
23
NPELRA Academy I, Section 1, p. 18
6|Page
Washington State, a contract term in the public sector may vary from one year to up to six years.
Further, due to the “contract bar” rule, an agreement of up to six years will bar a decertification
petition by a rival union.24
Management rights. The management rights provision details what areas of operating
the company are left to the sole discretion of the employer, which usually includes the right to
hire, fire, promote, suspend, and discharge employees, direct the work of employees, and
establish operating policies. These rights, however, are not absolute. Even though a management
rights clause allows employers to decide who to fire, terminations can be grieved and
arbitrated by unions if the union disagrees with the decision or procedure of termination.25
The two important functions of a detailed management rights clause are that it (1) permits
management to act unilaterally regarding terms and conditions of employment covered by the
clause, and (2) often strengthens the employer’s position in negotiations and arbitration.26
State and Federal labor laws recognize that a management rights clause is a mandatory
subject of bargaining.27 In Washington State, this recognition was recently reinforced by the
Public Employment Relations Commission in City of Bellevue.28 This is largely because an
enumeration of management rights directly affects wages, hours or working conditions of
bargaining unit members.29
24
The “contract bar” rule was established by the National Labor Relations Board and codified in Washington State
at RCW 41.56.070. The six year term of existence applies only to school districts, cities, counties, or municipal
corporations. For other public employers, the statutory limitation is three years with regard to the contract bar rule.
Public employment practitioners should research whether or not the contract bar rule applies in the State in which
they practice.
25
Austin, Matt, “Key Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreements (Part 1),” Matt Austin Labor Law (Retrieved
on April 3, 2014), available at http://mattaustinlaborlaw.com/2012/09/15/key-provisions-of-collective-bargainingagreements-part-1/.
26
Dow, Cabot, “What’s Important Now?” The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), HR Advisor
(September 2013), available at: https://www.mrsc.org/focus/hradvisor/hra1309.aspx
27
Ibid.
28
IAFF Local 1604 v. City of Bellevue, PERC Case 23828-U-11-6082, Decision 11435-A - PECB, July 12, 2013.
29
Dow, Cabot, “What’s Important Now?”
7|Page
Union recognition. This clause defines the scope of union membership and may be
useful for the employer in that it limits the number of union positions in the future because it
defines the work that is represented by the union.30 A carefully constructed union recognition
clause is an important first step in establishing clarity in the contract. However, it is important for
the rest of the contract to be consistent with the recognition clause.
Recognition is given either voluntarily by the public employer, or involuntarily after a
hearing/election before a public employment commission or board. Even after an election, the
recognition clause constructed by the commission may be inaccurate, so ensuring that the
employees who belong in the bargaining unit are the only ones listed in the recognition clause is
critical.31
Zipper clause. The zipper clause is often included in collective bargaining agreements to
emphasize that the written document contains the complete agreement negotiated by the parties,
that nothing that is excluded is agreed to unless it is put into writing, and that further negotiations
are not required on items contained in the contract or, in some cases, even items not contained in
the written agreement.32 The purpose of the clause is to stop either party from demanding further
negotiations during the life of the contract. It also limits a grievance arbitrator to making a
decision based on the contents of the written agreement.33
Re-openers during term. It may be advisable during times of economic uncertainty to
include a re-opener covering wages, for example, during the third year of a three-year contract. It
30
NPELRA, Academy I, “The Labor Contract” presentation
Austin, Matt, “Key Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreements (Part 1),” Matt Austin Labor Law (Retrieved
on April 3, 2014). Available at: http://mattaustinlaborlaw.com/2012/09/15/key-provisions-of-collective-bargainingagreements-part-1/
32
“zipper clause.” BusinessDictionary.com, 2013. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/zipper-clause.html
(Retrieved May 2, 2014).
33
Alaska Public Employees Association/AFT Employee Representative Manual, “Definitions of Common Labor
Terms,” (retrieved on April 3, 2014), available at http://www.apea-aft.org/ER/Glossary.html
31
8|Page
may be particularly difficult for an employer to forecast revenue that far in advance, and this
gives the parties an opportunity to settle a contract that would otherwise remain stalled.34
The Language of the Contract
The most crucial step in preparing a labor agreement for ratification is having a thorough
and carefully crafted agreement. The objective is to draft an agreement specific enough that it
serves as the last word on possible areas of dispute. While there are no guarantees that conflict
will be averted, there are several key areas that every public employer must address in order to
avoid grievance arbitration or unfair labor practice complaints.
Draft with precision and clarity. Clutter such as redundant or unnecessary phrases
should be eliminated, as well as any obsolete language. Remove any “legalese” that you
encounter along the way, as it only serves to make the terms and obligations of the contract
confusing.35 Use regular language to insure that both parties understand what the contract says
and means. It is a mistake to leave in words and phrases that just add weight and do nothing to
support the overall content. The drafter should only include what needs to be said and then
transition as naturally as possible to the next paragraph.
Be consistent. Define frequently used terms, and then use that term consistently
throughout the agreement.36 The clearest explanations and pure consistency from section to
section is essential in a labor contract. This requires thorough editing to insure that
contradictions, lack of organization and inconsistencies are eliminated.
Avoid misinterpretations. The usage of vague terms leaves those components of an
agreement up to the interpretation of each party, and the way each party interprets those terms
may be different. Keep everything detailed and specific, and avoid using terms that can have a
34
NPELRA, Academy I, Section 1, Section 1 “Special Contract Clauses,” p. 21.
NPELRA, Academy I, “The Labor Contract” presentation
36
Ibid.
35
9|Page
double meaning or leave things open indefinitely. For difficult concepts, consider the use of
examples and charts to provide clarity.37 Consider the manner in which the language may be
ambiguous and use specific language to define and clarify the intended concepts.
Use the advantage of being the drafting party. It is common for the party with the
most leverage or the most to lose from a poorly drafted contract to do the drafting. The public
sector drafter can make sure the issues they want to be addressed are not only covered, but
covered in a matter that best serves the public’s interest. Another benefit of controlling the pen is
being able to control the pace of contract negotiations.38 This is an important strategy for a party
anxious to have the negotiations progress quickly.
The Interpretation of Contract Language
It is absolutely necessary when drafting contract language that consideration is given to
how a court or an arbitrator would interpret the chosen wording. The rules, standards, and
principles utilized by arbitrators to interpret collective bargaining agreements and ascertain their
meaning have been borrowed from the jurisprudence developed by the courts.39
An Arbitrator’s limitations. First, it should be noted that the Arbitrator is not free to
dispense justice as he or she sees fit. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an arbitrator’s role in
interpreting collective bargaining agreements is limited to the essence of the agreement itself.
When an arbitrator’s award fails to honor this obligation, the courts have no choice but to refuse
enforcement of the award.40
Objective vs. subjective approach. Two opposing schools of thought exist with regard
to the analysis of contract language interpretation. The predominant one is the objective theory,
37
Ibid.
NPELRA, Academy I, “The Labor Contract” presentation
39
Elkouri, F., Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works,” Sixth Edition, p.431 (2003).
40
Steward Notes, “Contract Interpretation Standards,” MU Labor Education Program, Vol. 1, No. 2 (October,
1998).
38
10 | P a g e
which holds that the meaning of a contract term is that which would be attached by a reasonably
intelligent person acquainted with the operative usages and having knowledge of the
circumstances leading up to the making of the contract.41
The argument for using the objective approach to contract interpretation is that its
preference for the common meaning of words promotes predictability, uniformity and stability in
contractual relationships by minimizing the need for extended factual inquiry into what the
parties may have intended or believed.42
Conversely, the subjective analysis places value on what meaning a party has attached to
the language if the other party knew, or had reason to know, of the meaning attached by the first
party. The underlying policy is that when a party constructs a contract knowing a
misunderstanding exists, that party is sufficiently at fault to be subjected to the other party’s
understanding of the language.43
However, there is no single subjective or objective theory. Rather, there are a variety of
different vantage points from which the formation and interpretation of contracts could
conceivably be judged. The legal system could look solely to the intention of the party who used
the words in question, or solely to the understanding of the party to whom those words were
directed.44
A third and more balanced subjective test is also conceivable – a mutual standard “which
would allow only such meanings as conform to an intention common to both or all the parties,
41
Elkouri, F., Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works,” at p. 431
Ibid.
43
Ibid, at p. 433.
44
Perillo, Joseph M., “The Origins of the Objective Theory of Contract Formation and Interpretation,” Fordham
Law Review, Volume 69, Issue 2, Article 4 at p. 429, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol69/iss2/4/
42
11 | P a g e
and would attach this meaning.” This is the classic “meeting of the minds” philosophy that
developed in the mid-nineteenth century.45
The irrelevance of mental processes. It is important for advocates to recognize that
when applying either an objective or subjective theory, a party’s mental processes are irrelevant.
If the party has not communicated that intent to the other party, it will have no place in the
interpretive process.46
The plain meaning rule. Many courts and arbitrators follow the “Plain Meaning Rule,”
or, as it is sometimes referred to, the “Four Corners Rule.” This doctrine is essentially a lower
form of the “objective theory” because it ignores the context of the bargain.47 This rule holds that
if the words in the contract are plain and clear, there is no reason to resort to interpretation, and
the meaning is to be derived entirely from the language used. 48 In cases where the language is
clear and unambiguous, arbitrators are unlikely to consider extrinsic forms of evidence, such as
bargaining notes, the intent of the parties, or past practice. Words should be given their ordinary
and popularly accepted meaning in the absence of anything indicating they were used in a special
or technical manner. A reliable dictionary definition will typically be used.49
Clarifying meaning with extrinsic evidence. When the meaning of contract language is
not plain, the first kind of evidence usually offered to show meaning in contract language is
bargaining history. This includes both the development of the final language as a process of
metamorphosis from earlier proposals of the parties, as well as the oral and written comments of
the parties which express their understanding of the meaning of the terms.50
45
Ibid, citing Restatement of Contracts §227(3) (1932).
Elkouri, F., Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works,” at 433.
47
Ruben, Alan Miles, PhD, “Principles of Contract Interpretation,” Labor Arbitration Institute, Cleveland-Marshall
College of Law, http://www.mikewert1600.org/uploads/1/8/0/7/1807749/course_book_2010-11.pdf
48
Elkouri, F., Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works,” at 434.
49
Steward Notes, “Contract Interpretation Standards,” MU Labor Education Program.
50
Ruben, Alan Miles, PhD, “Principles of Contract Interpretation,” at 8.
46
12 | P a g e
Another aid to the determination of contract language is a binding “past practice.” To be
considered as binding upon the parties, a practice must be clear and unmistakable. It must be
consistently followed and frequently repeated over a long period of time, thus inferring both
parties had accepted the practice as part of their collective bargaining agreement. Indeed, the
parties’ conduct often speaks louder than the words used in their written agreement.51
Ambiguity. The traditionally held view is that a contract is subject to interpretation if
there are logical arguments for conflicting interpretations. While the language of mathematics is
precise, the English language is not. Even when the greatest care is used, ambiguity of meaning
can result. Further, the parties may not be skilled in draftsmanship and may use terms in the
contract that are inherently vague, i.e. a provision may provide that one or both parties must act
on a certain matter “with reasonable promptness.” Even more common is what has been called
the “ambiguity of syntax” error involving misplaced modifiers, inadequate punctuation, or the
use of shorthand expressions.52
Other sources of ambiguity arise from the inclusion of inconsistent provisions or
conflicting language within a term, or the inability to foresee a problem that might arise when a
term is applied to an unexpected situation. The very fact that nearly all such agreements provide
for the arbitration of grievances concerning agreement interpretation implies that the parties
recognize the futility of foreseeing and providing for every question that may arise during the life
of the agreement.53
The parol evidence rule. The “parol evidence” rule holds that outside evidence cannot
be used to change the clear language of a written agreement. This rule is frequently invoked by
one party or the other in arbitration when the other party seeks to offer testimony or evidence
51
Ibid, at 9
Elkouri, F., Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works,” at 441.
53
Ibid.
52
13 | P a g e
with regard to the negotiation or administration of the collective bargaining agreement. However,
such evidence is still frequently admitted on the theory that the applicable contract language is
ambiguous, and that such evidence will help the arbitrator to interpret the language.54
Public policy. The public interest may be a relevant factor in contract interpretation, and
arbitrators often decipher labor agreements in light of statutes and case law. If a law or rule sets
forth rights that are similar to those in the collective bargaining agreement, the statute or
regulation may very well be a factor in the arbitrator’s interpretation of the agreement. For
example, the rising rate of discrimination claims has created the necessity to view labor contracts
within the context of relevant law.55
Conclusion: The Desirable End Result
The goal for drafting a successful contract is to describe with accuracy the body of the
agreement in language that will be interpreted by each subsequent reader in exactly the same
way. Further, a strong contract is one that takes into consideration the fiscal challenges faced by
the public employer, and balances those with the duty to maintain positive relations with its
employees and the unions that represent them.
54
American Bar Association, “A Practical Guide to Grievance Arbitration,” (retrieved May 2, 2014), at p. 14,
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/basics_papers/nlra/grievance_arbitration.authcheckd
am.pdf.
55
Elkouri, F., Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works,” at 474-476.
14 | P a g e
A Meeting of the Minds of the Parties
An essential tenet of contract law is that there must be a “meeting of the minds” between
the parties forming the contract. However, it may be difficult for the parties, or even an
arbitrator, to establish the existence of a meeting of the minds. Often, an arbitrator may show a
preference to interpret the terms of the contract in a way which does the least harm or damage to
all the parties involved.56
As discussed previously, the language of the contract is the vehicle by which the parties’
understanding is conveyed. When drafting the agreement or reviewing language drafted by the
union, the public employer representative should ask: Is it precise, detailed and specific? Is it
clear or are the terms vague and open to misinterpretation? Is it consistent? Are common
meanings of words used? Does it contain ambiguity or omissions? Is it consistent with public
policy?
If the labor contract is not well-written, there may be no clear way to reach the
conclusion that the parties even understood it, let alone came to a “meeting of the minds.” This
dilemma may very well allow an arbitrator to interpret the language as they see fit.
Fiscal Stewardship
One aspect discussed briefly previously, but important when considering the final
agreement as a whole, is whether the contract language is constructed in a way where economic
effects can be anticipated and measured. In this respect, it is important for the employer’s
negotiating team to have reliable data available to support its analyses, and to provide support for
56
Laws.com, “Find Out What Meeting of the Minds Means,” (retrieved on March 30, 2014), available at:
http://contract-law.laws.com/contract-law/meeting-of-the-minds
15 | P a g e
the employer’s objectives.57 This means that information is gathered before negotiations begin
and before new contract language is drawn up.
Ongoing Positive Labor Relations
One final consideration not discussed previously herein, but one that should be reflected
throughout the contract in its entirety, is the importance of a good relationship between the
public employer, its employees, and the union.
In the public sector, there is a risk of creating or perpetuating an adversarial environment
when labor-management relationships are not built through collaboration. Gaining an upper hand
at the expense of those who provide service to the public will only cost the public employer more
in the long run. A genuine agreement made in goodwill by both the union and management will
ensure labor relations remain positive and productive in the future, as well as provide a means
for increased efficiency and financial stewardship. The written contract is a tangible illustration
of that collaboration, and the spirit of the relationship should be reflected throughout.
There are several compelling reasons why public sector employers should foster
collaborative labor-management relationships: (1) collaborative labor-management relationships
lead to increased organizational effectiveness and efficiencies; (2) unions and organizations have
shared interests that can be satisfied only through collaborative efforts; (3) collaboration leads to
increased employee satisfaction, an empowered workforce, and better service delivery; and (4)
cost-savings and cost-avoidances can be realized when unions and organizations collaborate.58
In closing, the collective bargaining agreement is the most significant instrument in the
management-labor relationship, and must be consciously handcrafted to demonstrate the true
57
Broth, Mark T. “In Labor Negotiations, Public Employers Need Finance Directors on the Team.”
American Society for Public Administration, “Labor-Management Relations: Return to Collaboration” (2013),
available at: http://patimes.org/labor-management-relations-return-collaboration/.
58
16 | P a g e
agreement of the parties. The application and interpretation of this agreement will dictate how an
agency is operationally and fiscally managed, as well as set the course for labor relations for
years to come. It is imperative that those tasked with composing the legal agreement between
management and labor do so with careful thought as to possible ramifications. It is a challenging
task that, when completed successfully, is a significant accomplishment.
17 | P a g e
References
Fecteau, Michelle, “Legal Boundaries of Collective Bargaining,” Labor Studies Center, Wayne
State University (Retrieved on April 3, 2014), available at:
www.clas.wayne.edu/Multimedia/lsc/files/collectivebargaing.pdf
Revised Code of Washington 41.56
Washington Administrative Code 391-45-550
City of Seattle, Decision 11588-A (PECB, 2013)
Rainsberger, Paul, “Federal Labor Laws, Section XVI. The Subject Matter of Bargaining”
University of Missouri Labor Education Program (Revised, July 2008), available at:
http://labored.missouri.edu/research/pdf/2005-16.pdf
National Public Employer Labor Relations Association, Academy I: The Foundation of Labor
Relations, Everett, WA (September 2013).
Warner, Mark, “Collective Bargaining Agreements – Key Provisions.” EzineArticles.com,
available at: http://ezinearticles.com/?Collective-Bargaining--Agreements---KeyProvisions&id=1540184
Austin, Matt, “Key Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreements (Part 1),” Matt Austin
Labor Law (Retrieved on April 3, 2014), available at:
http://mattaustinlaborlaw.com/2012/09/15/key-provisions-of-collective-bargaining-agreementspart-1/
Austin, Matt, “What are Mandatory, Permissive, and Illegal Subjects of Bargaining?” Matt
Austin Labor Law (August 15, 2012),, available at:
http://mattaustinlaborlaw.com/tag/permissive-subjects-of-bargaining/
BusinessDictionary.com, 2013. http://www.businessdictionary.com
Alaska Public Employees Association/AFT Employee Representative Manual, “Definitions of
Common Labor Terms,” (retrieved on April 3, 2014), available at http://www.apeaaft.org/ER/Glossary.html
Broth, Mark T. “In Labor Negotiations, Public Employers Need Finance Directors on the Team,”
New Hampshire Town and City (March/April 2013), available at:
http://www.nhmunicipal.org/TownAndCity/Article/495
Dow, Cabot, “What’s Important Now?” The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC),
HR Advisor (September 2013), available at: https://www.mrsc.org/focus/hradvisor/hra1309.aspx
IAFF Local 1604 v. City of Bellevue, PERC Case 23828-U-11-6082, Decision 11435-A - PECB,
July 12, 2013.
18 | P a g e
Ruben, Alan Miles, PhD, Labor Arbitration Institute: “Principles of Contract Interpretation,”
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law (2011), available at:
http://www.mikewert1600.org/uploads/1/8/0/7/1807749/course_book_2010-11.pdf.
Elkouri, F., Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works,” Sixth Edition (2003).
Joseph M. Perillo, “The Origins of the Objective Theory of Contract Formation and
Interpretation,” 69 Fordham L. Rev. 427 (2000), available at:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol69/iss2/4.
MU Labor Education Program, Continuing Union Leadership Education, “Contract
Interpretation Standards,” (October, 1998) Vol. 1, No. 2, available at:
http://labored.missouri.edu/research/contract.htm.
American Bar Association, “A Practical Guide to Grievance Arbitration,” (retrieved May 2,
2014), at p. 14, available at:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/basics_papers/nlra/grievance_arb
itration.authcheckdam.pdf.
Laws.com, “Find Out What Meeting of the Minds Means,” (retrieved on March 30, 2014),
available at: http://contract-law.laws.com/contract-law/meeting-of-the-minds.
American Society for Public Administration, “Labor-Management Relations: Return to
Collaboration” (2013), available at: http://patimes.org/labor-management-relations-returncollaboration/.
Written by:
Lisa Boggess
Labor Analyst
Office of Labor Relations
King County Executive Office
500 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 296-8581
lisa.boggess@kingcounty.gov
19 | P a g e