INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Him along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the Him is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University: MfcixSilms Internationa) 3 0 0 N. Z EE B R O A D . A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N W C 1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D 8013779 M u r r m a n n , K e n t F r e d e r ic k GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION IN THE MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE Michigan State University University Microfilms international Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1979 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION IN THE MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE By Kent Frederick Murrmann A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1979 ABSTRACT GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION IN THE MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE by KENT FREDERICK MURRMANN Formal grievance procedures are Intended to facilitate grievance resolution through the provision of a well defined and orderly method of settlement between the employer and the employee or the employee's organization, and, if settlement is not attained, by the provision of adjudication at the final step of the procedure. The availability of adjudication to decide grievances is important since it may be the only way of providing an orderly resolution of disputes that the parties are unable to resolve by mutual adjustment. The efficacy of any method of adjudication depends to a great extent on its acceptability to the grievance parties. This research evaluates the acceptability of a method of grievance adjudication devised for use in a noncollective bargaining, state civil service setting. The particular system of adjudication examined is that provided in the Michigan Civil Service. Unlike adjudication under collective bargaining, which relies almost universally on private arbi­ trators that are selected and paid jointly by the parties, the Michigan system of adjudication relies primarily on Hearing Officers that are selected and employed unilaterally by the state. This study seeks to determine whether this unilaterally administered system of adjudication has attained acceptability in terms of four fundamental factors: (1) the impartiality of the adjudicating agents used; (2) the qualifications of the adjudicating agents used; (3) the timeliness of the adjudication decisions provided; and (4) the cost of the adjudication decisions provided. Method A literature review was conducted for the purpose of defining the factors that affect acceptability, and determining the types of adjudi­ cation agents used in various collective bargaining and noncollective bargaining settings. The literature review revealed a lack of research concerning the types of adjudication used in noncollective bargaining, state civil service settings. Therefore, the author administered a questionnaire survey to state personnel directors to determine how the methods of adjudication used in other states compares to that used in Michigan. In order to examine the administration and structure of the Michigan system of adjudication in terms of the four acceptability factors, the author collected and analyzed extensive archival data including internal memoranda and reports, official policy statements, rules and regulations, minutes of the Michigan Civil Service Commission meetings, records of Hearing Officer and arbitrator grievance decisions, and grievance procedure cost data. The acceptability of the Michigan system to employees, employee representatives, and employer represen­ tatives was appraised through the use of interviews and survey questionnaires designed to measure the parties' satisfaction and dis­ satisfaction with aspects of the system. Separate interviews were con­ ducted with the members of the Michigan Civil Service Commission to determine their views of the system. Conclusions Analysis showed that the Michigan system of adjudication is gen­ erally sound in terms of the four acceptability factors examined in this research. However, the research found a need for improvement in some aspects of the system. The author provided recommendations to strengthen the perceived impartiality and competence of Hearing Officers, improve the timeliness of decisions, and promote greater efforts by the parties to settle grievances prior to adjudication. To Suzanne, Sarah, and Abigail ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Jack Stieber, who served as chairman, for his assistance in the planning and development of this re­ search. Dr. Richard Block, for his encouragement and support of this study. Dr. Frederic Wickert, for his support of this research. M. J. Soltow and N. E. Barkey, for their bibliographic assistance. S. Karsa Murrmann, for her technical and editorial assistance. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ..................................................... vii LIST OF F I G U R E S ................................................. x CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE P R O B L E M ........................ . ........................ 1 S c o p e ....................................................... Methodology................................................. 6 10 PART ONE ACCEPTABILITY IN GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION CHAPTER TWO - FACTORS AFFECTING ACCEPTABILITY .................. 12 The Impartiality of the Adjudication A g e n t ................ The Qualification of the Adjudicating A g e n t ................ The Timeliness of the Adjudication Decisions . . . . . . . . The Cost of the Adjudication D e c i s i o n s .................... S u m m a r y ..................................................... 13 19 21 22 23 CHAPTER THREE - GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION IN NONCOLLECTIVE BARGAINING S E T T I N G S ........................................... 24 Private Sector Approaches ................................... Public Sector Approaches .......... . .................... Survey of Grievance Adjudication In State Employment . . . . 24 28 29 CHAPTER FOUR - THE PARTIES' PERCEPTIONS OF GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION ................................................... 37 PART TWO THE MICHIGAN SYSTEM OF ADJUDICATION CHAPTER FIVE - THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION IN M I C H I G A N ....................................... 44 Organization of the Michigan Civil S e r v i c e ................ Development of Grievance Adjudication from 1938 to 1971 . . . Recent Developments, 1972-1978 Current Operations ......................................... 44 47 52 55 iv CHAPTER SIX - THE CIVIL SERVICE HEARING O F F I C E R ...................60 Knowledge, Abilities, and Responsibilities ................ 61 On The Job T r a i n i n g ........................................... 63 Compensation and Qualifications ............................ 63 65 Conflict of Interest ....................................... CHAPTER SEVEN - GRIEVANCE AND TECHNICAL APPEAL DECISIONS ........ 69 Step 4 Grievance D e c i s i o n s ................................... 70 Decisions by the Department I n v o l v e d ........ . .............. 71 Decisions by Type of Representation........................... 73 Decisions by Classification Level ........................ . 74 Decisions by Action Grieved . ............................... 76 Step 4 Decisions Classified in Terms of Outcome ............ 77 Timeliness of Step 4 Grievance Hearings andDecisions . . . . 79 Hearing Officer Decisions Appealed to the Commission . . . . 80 81 Expedited versus Regular Hearings .......................... Ad Hoc versus Regular Hearing Officer Decisions ............ 83 Decisions by Arbitrators ................................... 84 Decisions of Technical Hearing Officers..................... 86 CHAPTER EIGHT - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE COSTS ...................... 91 The Cost of Commission A p p e a l s ............................... 93 Hearing Division Costs ..................................... 94 Arbitration Costs ........................................... 96 CHAPTER NINE - DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION PERCEPTIONS OF THE GRIEVANCE AND APPEAL P R O C E D U R E ...............98 CHAPTER TEN - EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ADJUDICATION ........................................................ 114 PROCESS Survey Results ............................................. 116 CHAPTER ELEVEN - VIEWS OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEMBERS . . . . 128 PART THREE CHAPTER TWELVE - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 131 S u m m a r y .......................................................131 Conclusions.................................................. 133 Impartiality ........................................... 134 Qualifications ......................................... 140 T imeliness.............................................. 141 C o s t s .................................................. 142 Commission R e v i e w ...................................... 143 Summary ...................... 144 Recommendations.............................................. 145 v APPENDICES Appendix A. Questionnaire to Other States ........................... 149 B. Results of the Questionnaire to Other States C. The Grievance and Appeals Procedure for Employees in the State Civil S e r v i c e ............................157 D. Questionnaire to Civil Service Hearing Officers ......... 161 E. Civil Service Hearing Officer and Arbitrator Decisions ............................................ ........... 152 170 F. Data on Employment and Employee Organization M e m b e r s h i p ............................................ 198 G. Occupations and Salary Ranges of State Employees H. Index of Personnel Actions I. Cost Survey Questionnaire................................ 204 J. Aggregate Results of Department and Employee Organization Survey ................................... 208 K. Critical Comments Provided by Department and Employee Organization Representatives ................ .... ............................. 202 203 228 L. Questionnaire to Employees, Group A ..................... 242 M. Questionnaire to Employees, Group B ..................... 245 N. Follow-up Questionnaire Cover Letter .............. . . 250 B I B L I O G R A P H Y ...................................................... 251 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 DISTRIBUTION OF Table 2 DISTRIBUTION OF DECISIONS AND DECISIONRATES BY DEPARTMENT, 1977 ............................... 72 DISTRIBUTION OF DECISIONS BY REPRESENTATION TYPE, 1977 ................................................... 73 DISTRIBUTION OF DECISIONS BY EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION LEVEL, 1977 75 Table 3 Table 4 DECISIONS BY DEPARTMENT,1973-1977 . . . 71 Table 5 DISTRIBUTION OF DECISIONS BY ACTION-GRIEVED, 1977 ... 77 Table 6 DISTRIBUTION OF DECISIONS BY OUTCOME, 1977 ............. 78 Table 7 ADJUDICATION-COSTS FISCAL YEAR 1978 92 Table 8 EVALUATION OF GRIEVANCE AND TECHNICAL H E A R I N G S .......... 102 Table 9 EVALUATION OF ARBITRATION HEARINGS AND PRE­ ARBITRATION C O N F E R E N C E S ............................... 103 Table 10 EVALUATION OF REDETERMINATION H E A R I N G S .................. 104 Table 11 EVALUATION OF REGULAR AND TECHNICAL D E C I S I O N S ..........105 Table 12 EVALUATION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS Table 13 EVALUATION OF REDETERMINATION DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE SELECTION AND CLASSIFICATION BUREAUS .............. 107 Table 14 EVALUATION OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DECISIONS . . . . 110 Table 15 EVALUATION OF OVERALL P E R F O R M A N C E ...................... 113 Table 16 ACCESS TO GRIEVANCE I N F O R M A T I O N ........................ 117 Table 17 ACCESS TO GRIEVANCE F O R M S .............................. 118 Table 18 ACCESS TO GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Table 19 UNDERSTANDING OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ............... 120 Table 20 IMPARTIALITY OF HEARING O F F I C E R S ........................ 121 vli ................... 106 ......................... 119 Table 21 Table 22 EVALUATION OF DECISION FAIRNESS, MSEA VERSUS AFSCME MEMBERS ......................................... 122 EVALUATION OF HEARING FAIRNESS, EXPEDITED VERSUS REGULAR HEARINGS ....................................... 127 Table 23 GRIEVANCES DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING AT CIVIL SERVICE STEP 4 ........................................... 170 Table 24 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY DEPARTMENT, CY 1973-1977 ........................................... 171 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY REPRESENTATION, 1973-1977 173 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY CLASSIFICATION LEVEL, 1973-1977 .............. . ...................... 174 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 DECISIONS BY TYPE OF EMPLOYER ACTION GRIEVED, 1973-1977 .................... 176 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 GRIEVANCES BY TYPE OF DECISION, 1973-1977 177 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table Table 29 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY TIME ELAPSEDFROM DATE OF APPEAL TO DATE OF HEARING, 1973-1977 ........... 178 30 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 DECISIONS BY TIME ELAPSED FROM DATE OF HEARING TO DATE OF DECISION, 1973-1977 ........ 179 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 STEP 4 DECISIONS APPEALED AND NOT APPEALED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 1973-1977 180 STEP 4 DECISIONS APPEALED AND NOT APPEALED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 1977 ..................... 181 COMMISSION DECISIONS ON CASES APPEALED BY LEAVE, 1973-1977 182 COMMISSION DECISIONS ON CASES APPEALED BY RIGHT, 1973-1977 183 HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS REGULAR VERSUS EXPEDITED HEARINGS, 1977 ......................................... 184 CASES DECIDED BY REGULAR AND AD HOC HEARING OFFICERS, 1973-1977 185 .... STEP 4 HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS ON DISCHARGE CASES, AD HOC VERSUS FULL TIME HEARING OFFICERS, 1973-1977 vlli 186 Table 38 Table 39 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DECISIONS ON DISCHARGE GRIEVANCES FULL TIME VERSUS AD HOC HEARING OFFICERS, 1973-1977 . 187 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY ACTION GRIEVED, 1973-1977 ..................................... 188 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY DEPARTMENT INVOLVED, 1973-1977 189 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION, 1973-1977 190 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANT, 1973-1977 191 ELAPSED TIME OF ARBITRATION HEARINGS AND DECISIONS, 1973-1977 ................................... 192 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY DECISION, 1973-1977 '............ 193 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY COMMISSION APPEALS ACTIVITY, 1973-1977 ................ 194 DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNICAL HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS BY ACTION APPEALED, 1975-1978 195 Table 47 TECHNICAL HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS, 1975-1977 ......... 196 Table 48 TECHNICAL HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION, 1976-1977 ........................... 197 Table 49 AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT, 1973-1979 . . . 198 Table 50 AVERAGE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP BY EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION, 1973-1977 200 AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT BY CLASSIFICATION LEVEL, 1973-1977 201 OCCUPATIONS AND SALARY RANGES OF STATE EMPLOYEES . . . . 202 Table AO Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 51 Table 52 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure One The Michigan Civil Service ........................... Figure Two The Department of Civil S e r v i c e .................. x 45 . 46 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A grievance exists when one or more employees disagree with manage­ ment concerning the interpretation and application of a policy or rule pertinent to the employment relationship. Speaking generally, employee dissatisfaction with some aspect of the work setting not covered by a specific policy or rule may give rise to a grievance. Whether policies and rules are negotiated between management and an employee organization, or are established unilaterally by management, it is inevitable that grievances concerning their proper interpretation and application will arise. The provision of a timely and equitable resolution of employee grievances is a necessary component of a functional work setting. When grievances remain unresolved, dysfunction may appear in the form of de­ creased employee morale, increased absenteeism and turnover, and unsat­ isfactory work performance. This dysfunction could culminate in the form of concerted employee action. Formal grievance procedures are intended to facilitate grievance resolution through the provision of a well defined and orderly method of settlement by the employer and the employee and his union where there is one, and if settlement is not attained, by the provision of adjudica­ tion at the final stage of the procedure.^ The availability of final ■''The function of adjudication is to render a decision that provides a final resolution of the grievance. 1 2 adjudication is important since it may be the only way of providing an orderly resolution of disputes unresolvable by the parties. In unionized settings, adjudication serves as a substitute for the strike and the lockout in settling unresolved grievances. The parties gen­ erally prefer to arbitrate grievances rather than to settle them by economic force or to allow them to remain unresolved. 2 Also, in a few nonunion settings, the parties have demonstrated a preference for some form of final disposition of grievances rather than allowing grievances to remain unsettled. 3 The efficacy of any method of adjudication depends largely on its acceptability to the parties, 4 A review of the literature indicates that at least four factors are considered important by the grievance parties in determining the acceptability of the method they use to 2 Golden, C. S., and V. D. Parker (eds.), Causes of Industrial Peace (New York: Harper Brothers, 1949), p. 47. The terms arbitration and adjudication will be used throughout the dissertation. The term arbitra­ tion refers to the use of one or more neutrals or impartial persons to decide a dispute. Adjudication refers to any method for providing a decision to resolve a dispute including but not limited to arbitration. Simkin, William E., Acceptability as a Factor in Arbitration Under an Existing Agreement (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952), p. 4. 3 National Industrial Conference Board, Grievance Procedures in Nonunionized Companies. Studies in Personnel Policies No. 109 (New York: National Industrial Conference Board, 1950), pp. 16-17. Scott, William G., The Management of Conflict, Appeals Systems in Organizations (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965), pp. 90113. 4 The concept of acceptability may be used to evaluate the objective quality of the decision as well as the method used to reach a decision. The focus here is primarily on the method of decision. For further discussion refer to: Maier, Norman, R. F., Psychology in Industrial Organizations, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1973). 3 adjudicate grievances. The most fundamental factor affecting accept­ ability is whether the adjudication function is perceived by the parties as being conducted impartially. Scholarly opinion suggests that in general, adjudication by any agent other than a neutral party, an out­ sider selected by joint agreement, lacks acceptability.^ Employees generally are reluctant to use grievance procedures that lack adjudica­ tion by a neutral outsider for the following reasons: (1) they doubt the ability of management, or their agents, to decide grievances on an objective and impartial basis, and (2) without the availability of adjudication by a neutral outsider employees perceive a lack of protec­ tion against negative management attitudes concerning their grievances g and the use of grievance procedures. The qualifications of the adjudication agent in terms of such factors as experience, education, knowledge of labor relations matters, and integrity are also considered to be of great importance by the parties in determining acceptability.^ Finally, the timeliness and cost of decisions are seen as having a ^Slichter, Sumner H., James J. Healy, and Robert E. Livernash, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management (Washington, D. C . : Brookings Institute, 1960), p. 692. g Beach, Dale S., "An Organizational Problem - Subordinate-Superior Relations," Advanced Management, Vol. 25 (December 1960), pp. 13-14. Tead, Ordway, and Henry C. Metcalf, Personnel Administration -Its Principles and Practice (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1926), p. 243. ^Chamberlain, Neil W . , "Neutral Consultants in Collective Bargain­ ing," Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators. 1962, pp. 83-96. Elson, Alex, "Ethical Responsibilities of the Arbitrator," Twenty Fourth Annual Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 1971, pp. 194-203. 4 g significant impact on acceptability. However, empirical research examining the acceptability of any method of grievance adjudication is scant. This study will appraise, in terms of these four factors, the acceptability of a method of adjudication devised for use in a noncollective bargaining, state civil service setting. 9 Due to its size, state civil service employment can be considered an important sector of employment. Total employment in this sector increased from approxi­ mately 280,000 in 1953 to 3.5 million employees in 1977.^ Figures for Fleming, R. W . , The Labor Arbitration Process (Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1965), pp. 220-221. The King, Brian L., "Some Aspects of the Active Labor Arbitrator," Personnel Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2 (February 1971), pp. 115-123. McKelvey, Jean T., and Derek L. Rogers, "Survey of the Arbitration Profession in 1969," Twenty Fourth Annual Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 1971, pp. 275-303. g Fleming, Op. Cit.» pp. 31, 57. Fossum, John A., Labor Relations, p. 368. Jones, Dallas, and Russell Smith, "Management and Labor Appraisals and Criticisms of the Labor Arbitration Process: A Report with Com­ ments," Michigan Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 2 (May 1964), pp. 1115-1156. Ross, Arthur M . , "Distressed Grievance Procedures and Their Rehabilitation," in Mark L. Kahn (ed.) Labor Arbitration and Industrial Change, p. 187. 9 The term noncollective bargaining rather than nonunion is used because, though collective bargaining is not permitted in state civil service in Michigan, many state employees hold membership in a union or an employee organization. 10 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Public Employment in 1977, GE 77, No. 1 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 12. 5 1977 range from approximately 10,000 employees in Wyoming, the smallest state employer, to over 290,000 in California. Labor relations practices in state employment differ considerably from state to state, and questions concerning the treatment of important labor relations matters, including grievance adjudication, are far from being settled in many states.^ The particular system of adjudication examined in this research is that provided for classified employees in the Michigan Civil Service. The Michigan approach provides for adjudication by either a state employed Hearing Officer or a mutually selected private arbitrator, with final review by the Michigan Civil Service Commission. Formal arrangements for grievance adjudication were first provided to state employees in Michigan in 1938 by the Michigan Civil Service Commission. Since 1938, the Commission has revised this process extensively. The goals of these revisions have been to improve the operation of the adjudication process and to strengthen its acceptability to the employees, employee organizations, and departments involved in its use, Michigan, as a result, has one of the most elaborate systems of ■^Derber, Milton, Peter Pashler, and Mary Beth Ryan, Collective Bargaining by State Governments in the Twelve Midwestern States (Champaign, 111.: Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, 1974), p. 41. Nigro, Felix A., "Labor Relations in State and Local Governments," Personnel Administration, Vol. 33, No. 6 (November-December 1970), pp. 42-47. Ullman, Joseph C., and James P. Begin, "The Structure and Scope of Appeals Procedures for Public Employees," Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 23, No. 3 (April 1970), pp. 323-334. 6 grievance adjudication available in a noncollective bargaining, civil service setting. Scope This research focuses on a test of the proposition that a system of adjudication, based primarily on the use of civil service Hearing Officers, selected unilaterally and employed by the state, rather than on the use of private arbitrators, selected and financed jointly by the parties, can gain acceptability as a means of grievance resolution. 12 The scope of the analysis will include both an examination of adminis­ trative policies, procedures and records and a survey of the perceptions of the grievance parties. The empirical aspects of this research are confined to data drawn solely from the Michigan system. Accordingly, the findings and conclu­ sions may not be directly generalizable to other civil service jurisdic­ tions. Nevertheless, this work does indicate the extent to which a highly developed system of adjudication, primarily unilateral in nature, has proved useful and acceptable to the Michigan parties. As such, it should serve as a valuable source of ideas and guidance to employers attempting to develop programs of grievance adjudication in other non­ collective bargaining, civil service jurisdictions. The study is divided into three parts. Part One, chapters two through four, examines the factors that determine the acceptability of grievance adjudication. 12 Chapter two defines and clarifies these Not included within the scope of this study is an appraisal of the several steps of the grievance procedure that precede the final adjudication step or steps. 7 factors, and reviews the statistical performance of adjudication In collective bargaining settings in terms of the four factors. These data will be used as part of the assessment criteria in analyzing the acceptability of the Michigan adjudication system. Because adjudica­ tion as practiced under collective bargaining is a result of negotia­ tion by the parties, it provides a reasonable benchmark of what is acceptable to the parties in terms of impartiality, competence, timeli­ ness, and costs. Preliminary research indicates that approaches to grievance adjudication differ between collective bargaining and non­ collective bargaining settings and between the private and public sectors of employment. Chapter three is devoted to a review of the types of adjudication used in these several settings, with special emphasis placed on identifying the various approaches used in state government. In the final analysis, the acceptability of any system of adjudication must be determined by an analysis of the perceptions of the parties. Therefore, a literature survey was conducted to locate empirical research that attempted to assess how employees, employee representatives, and employer representatives viewed various methods of grievance adjudication. Chapter four summarizes the results of this survey. Part IXro, chapters five through ten, contains an intensive exam­ ination of the Michigan system of grievance adjudication. Chapter five reviews the development of this system, and describes its current structure and operation. The qualifications of the Civil Service Hear­ ing Officers employed under the Michigan system are examined in chapter six. This Includes a consideration of how they are selected and 8 trained, and what standards are utilized to guide their work. The grievance and technical appeal decisions by Hearing Officers and arbitrators are examined in chapter seven. The record of decisions is analyzed in terms of outcome, timeliness, the rate of participation by various departments, employee organizations, and employee classifica­ tion levels, and the incidence of decisions overruled or remanded by the Civil Service Commission. The monetary costs to the parties of processing grievances through adjudication are examined in chapter eight. The costs involved in using full time Hearing Officers, ad hoc Hearing Officers, and private arbitrators are compared. Department and employee organization representatives are typically involved in numerous decisions each year, and consequently have a great deal of practical knowledge of the process. Department and employee organization repre­ sentatives, therefore, were surveyed to determine their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with selected aspects of the adjudication process. The results of this survey are analyzed in chapter nine. Though a majority of Michigan state employees have never processed a grievance through adjudication, and few are involved in more than one or two formal grievances during their entire employment with the State, their perceptions of the process are a fundamental aspect of its acceptabil­ ity. The results of a survey of employee perceptions of selected aspects of the process are analyzed in chapter ten. The Michigan Civil Service Commission, in addition to formulating the employment policies of the State, is ultimately responsible for the design and operation of the adjudication process. The views of Commission members concerning 9 their role in the process and the present design and operation of the system are considered in chapter eleven. Fart Three of the dissertation, containing chapter twelve, con­ tains the author's conclusions concerning the acceptability of the Michigan system of adjudication. Methodology As a starting point a literature review was conducted for the purpose of defining factors that affect acceptability, and identifying the types of adjudicating agents used in collective bargaining and non­ collective bargaining employment settings. The literature review revealed very little literature concerning the types of adjudication used in state civil service employment. Consequently, a questionnaire survey was administered to the state personnel directors in the 49 states exclusive of Michigan to identify the methods of adjudication used in those states. The results of the questionnaire survey were analyzed, and the several types of adjudicating agents identified in the survey were classified according to the methods used to select and employ them. The author, in order to examine grievance adjudication in the Michigan Civil Service, collected and analyzed extensive archival data, including internal memoranda and reports, official policy statements, rules and regulations, minutes of Michigan Civil Service Commission meetings, records of Hearing Officers and arbitrator decisions, and grievance procedure cost data. On the basis of this examination the author described the structure and operation of the Michigan system, 10 and evaluated it In terms of the acceptability factors defined in the literature review. The acceptability of the Michigan system to the employees, employee representatives, and employer representatives who use this system, was appraised through an analysis of their responses to questionnaire items concerning satisfaction with selected aspects of the system. In order to obtain the needed measures of satisfaction and dissatisfaction the author administered a questionnaire to the principal grievance repre­ sentatives of the nineteen main departments and the seven employee organizations in Michigan state government. These grievance represen­ tatives responded to a set of Likert type rating items in order to indicate their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with aspects of the adjudication process. 13 They also responded to an open ended question that sought an explanation for any dissatisfaction indicated in the response to the aforementioned items. Finally, the representatives provided their individual assessments of the relative merits of Civil Service Hearing Officers and arbitrators in terms of certain criteria specified in the questionnaire. The author also conducted a questionnaire survey of two groups of Michigan state employees, identified hereinafter as Groups A and B. No individual was included in both groups. Group A consisted of a representative sample of all regular, full time employees on the civil service payroll during May, 1978. 13 Because of its representative The Likert rating items provided for a rating of satisfaction at five levels, including "very satisfied," "satisfied," "neither satisfied or dissatisfied," "dissatisfied," and "very dissatisfied." 11 character, Group A Included both a sample of employees that had prior experience in processing one or more grievances under the Michigan system and a sample of employees that had no such prior experience. Group B included all employees who filed a grievance that was heard by a Hearing Officer during the period from April 1, 1978 to June 10, 1978, but had not received the Hearing Officer’s decision at the time they responded to the survey. Both groups of employees responded to a set of Likert type rating items dealing with their perceptions of their access to the system, and the fairness of the treatment they received, or would expect to receive under it. Group B was limited to employees who did not know the outcome of their grievances in order to exclude ratings that might be biased because the employee knew he had won or lost his grievance. This survey was tabulated and analyzed and an estimate was made of the extent to which the several types of respon­ dents were satisfied or dissatisfied with selected aspects of the Michigan system. Finally, the author conducted interviews with the four members of the Michigan Civil Service Commission to determine their views on the acceptability of the Michigan system and their role in its operation. The author, in the concluding chapter, drew upon the analysis and results reported in Parts One and Two in order to develop conclusions and recommendations. PART ONE ACCEPTABILITY IN GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION CHAPTER TWO FACTORS AFFECTING ACCEPTABILITY The acceptability of any system of grievance adjudication, as out­ lined in chapter one, is determined largely by the parties' perceptions of four factors: 1. The impartiality of the adjudicating agent and the process 2. The qualifications of the adjudicating agent 3. The timeliness of adjudication decisions 4. The cost of adjudication decisions. This chapter will examine these factors and review statistical data that indicate the record of arbitration in collective bargaining set­ tings in terms of these factors. These data will be used, in Parts Two and Three, as a benchmark for a comparative evaluation of the Michi­ gan approach to adjudication. The necessity to use benchmark data from collective bargaining settings arises since no other set of comparative information is avail­ able. Moreover, the practice of adjudication under collective bargain­ ing represents the best method that organized labor and management have been able to formulate through several decades of bargaining, and thus, should constitute a practical indication of what is acceptable to both parties. 12 13 The Impartiality of the Adjudication Agent and the Process Adjudication performs the sensitive function of resolving disputes over the meaning and application of the policies and rules that govern the employment relationship. The policies and rules allocate to indi­ viduals their respective rights and duties in the organization and gen­ erate expectations of benefits to be earned and obligations to be owed as a result of participation in the organization.^ In order for indi­ viduals to be assured that their expectations cannot be disregarded arbitrarily, and are accorded equal status with the expectations of other members of the organization, the adjudication function should be free of influence by personal or irrelevant considerations. To safe­ guard the integrity of individual expectations the adjudication function should treat the rights of all members of the organization with impar- tiality. fundamental to the integrity of the dis­ This requirement is pute resolution process in any organizational setting.^ Various criteria have been suggested for tiality of the adjudicating agent. use in assessing the impar­ The most direct indicator is the procedure through which the adjudication agent is selected. It is rea­ sonable to conclude that an adjudicator that is selected through a joint ^Scott, William G., The Management of Conflict, Appeals Systems in Organizations (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965), pp. 90-112. Bodenheimer, Edgar, Jurisprudence. The Philosophy and Method of Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 269-313. ^Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Press of Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 159. •*0p. Cit., Scott, pp. 95-105. ^Op. Cit., Rawls, pp. 58-60, 237. The Belknapp 14 decision of the parties Is perceived to be Impartial since joint selec­ tion would presumably eliminate an adjudicator that either party thought was predisposed to favor the other side. This method of selection is used almost universally In collective bargaining settings. A 1975 study of 1,517 collective bargaining agree­ ments conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicates that about 96 percent of the contracts in private industry provide for final and binding arbitration of grievances by a jointly selected, third party.^ The remaining four percent of the BLS sample of contracts made no refer­ ence to the adjudication of unresolved grievances. In the federal sec­ tor, Executive Orders 10988 and 11491, issued in 1962 and 1969, respec­ tively, authorized collective bargaining and either advisory or binding arbitration of grievances by jointly selected neutrals. In 1977, the United States Civil Service Commission surveyed 3,032 negotiated agree­ ments covering a total of 1,073,680 federal service employees, and found provisions for grievance adjudication in 2,658 (89 percent) of the agree­ ments.^ Final and binding adjudication by a jointly selected neutral was provided in 2,454, or about 92 percent of the agreements that con­ tained grievance provisions.7 The remaining 204, comprising about eight United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Characteristics of Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, July 1, 1975, Bulletin No. 1957 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 34. ^United States Civil Service Commission, Grievance Arbitration in the Federal Service (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977), p. 1. 7Ibid., p. 35. 15 percent of those with grievance provisions, provided for arbitration that was advisory to a final decision by an agency official or the FedQ eral Labor Relations Council. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducted a survey in 1973 9 of grievance and arbitration practices in state and local governments. The survey included the 655 negotiated agreements on file with the BLS that covered fifty or more employees. The results of the survey indi­ cate that 591 agreements (about ninety percent) contained provisions for a grievance procedure, and of these, 496 (83 percent) included the use of some type of impartial agency in the resolution of the grievance. Thirteen (2.6 percent) of the 496 provided for fact finding and recom­ mendations to an agency official, fifteen agreements (three percent) provided for mediation with an agency official retaining final authority to decide grievances, 444 agreements (89.5 percent) provided for final and binding arbitration by a jointly selected neutral party, eight agree­ ments (1.6 percent) provided for both fact finding and binding arbitra­ tion, and sixteen agreements (3.2 percent) provided for both mediation and final and binding arbitration.^ In the absence of a joint selection process, the question of the adjudicator’s impartiality becomes more critical. Scott concludes that in order to insure impartiality the adjudication function should be separated from the management function, and controlled by a disinterested, 8Ibid., p. 35. ^United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Grievance and Arbitration Provisions in State and Local Government (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 15-45. 10Ibld., p. 40. 16 third p a r t y . E v a n likewise concludes that without a separation of authority between the management and adjudication functions, the sub­ ordinate employee may be vunerable to the arbitrary and personal influence of his/her superior. 12 Rule 11 of the Voluntary Labor Arbitra­ tion Rules of the American Arbitration Association places particular emphasis on avoiding a conflict of interest: QUALIFICATIONS OF ARBITRATOR - No person shall serve in any arbitration in which he has any financial or personal inter­ est in the result of the arbitration, unless the parties, in writing, waive such disqualifications. This suggests that if the selection decision is controlled unilaterally by the employer, the particular relationship between the adjudicator and the employer should be examined to determine if reasonable precau­ tions have been taken to eliminate improper employer influence on the » adjudication decision. The availability of procedural due process to each of the parties is another factor that should be considered in connection with impar­ tiality.^ Procedural due process, unlike the other factors discussed in this section, is not a personal characteristic of the adjudication agent, per se, but rather is a set of procedural safeguards that limit the exercise of arbitrary power in the adjudication process. The concept of due process dates back to the time of the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.), •^ O p . Cit., Scott, pp. 119-123. *-2Evan, William M . , "Organization, Man and Due Process of Law," American Sociological Review, Vol. 26, No. 4 (August 1961), p. 542. •^American Arbitration Association, Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules (New York, N. Y.: American Arbitration Association, 1970), p. 3. ■^Edwards, Harry 1., "Due Process Considerations in Labor Arbitra­ tion," The Arbitration Journal. Vol. 25, No. 3 (March 1970), pp. 141-167. 17 and provides to all parties in a dispute the right to receive a hearing conducted with regular procedures, to confront and cross-examine hostile witnesses, and to introduce evidence on one’s own b e h a l f . T h o u g h the operation of due process does not insure the impartiality of the adju­ dicator, it does provide each party with an equal opportunity to repre­ sent its interests in the adjudication process. The rigid requirements of due process used in criminal proceedings are not ordinarily appro­ priate in private grievance adjudication.*® In collective bargaining settings, the usefulness of adjudication stems from its flexibility and avoidance of bulky and legalistic rules of procedure and evidence; private arbitrators and the parties have established a pattern of ordered informality by extracting the sense of fairness from the rules of due process and shunning the rigidity and formality.*^ Finally, the record of wins and losses may be of significance in determining the parties' perceptions of the impartiality of the adjudi­ cation agent. The concept of a win/loss tally is of no value as an objec­ tive indicator of the adjudicator's impartiality due to the presence of numerous factors that may play a role in determining the record of wins and losses. However, either of the parties may perceive that the adjudicator or the process lacks impartiality if the distribution of wins and losses greatly favors the other party. 18 15Mott, Rodney L . , Due Process of Law (Indianapolis, Ind.: Merrill Co., 1926), pp. 1-29. ^Edwards, Op. Cit.. p. 169. 17Ibid.. p. 146. 18 Fleming, R. W., The Labor Arbitration Process, p. 205. Bobs- 18 Few statistics are available that indicate the record of wins and losses experienced by the parties in different settings. Those that have been published indicate that the employer wins anywhere from fifty to seventy-five percent of the arbitration decisions in collective bargaining settings. 19 The fact that the employer usually wins more than fifty percent of grievance decisions is explained largely by the dif­ ference between employers and unions in the way they make the decision of whether to take a grievance to arbitration. Union leaders are elected to office through democratic processes, and may be pressured by rank and file members to carry unmeritorious grievances to arbitra­ tion. Management, however, is not subject to democratic pressures, and they are more able to resolve meritorious grievances before they reach arbitration. The net result is that fewer meritorious grievances reach arbitration. A survey of 1135 adjudication decisions in the fed­ eral civil service issued during the period 1970 through 1976 found fifty percent of the decisions being awarded to the employer. 20 However, this occurred while arbitration was still very new to the federal ser­ vice. It is possible that as federal employers gain more experience, 19 Dunbar, Florence, Management Participation in the Arbitration Process. 1969. Najita, J. M . , Labor Arbitration Awards in Hawaii. 19441962, 1967, p. 2. Ross, A. M., "Distressed Grievance Procedures and Their Rehabilitation," Labor Arbitration and Industrial Change, 1963, p. 110. Small, J., Factors That May Influence the Success Rate of Manage­ ment and Unions in Arbitration Cases. 1974, p. 14. 20 United States Civil Service Commission, Grievance Arbitration in the Federal Service (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Civil Service Commis­ sion, 1977), p. 37. 19 their ability to resolve meritorious grievances prior to arbitration will increase, and they will win a larger proportion of adjudication decisions. In summary, three criteria can be considered of significant value in assessing the impartiality of the adjudication agent and the process. The first is the selection process used to choose the adjudicator. The process could range from a joint decision by the involved parties to a unilateral decision by the employer. The second is the ability of the adjudicator to exercise judgment free of improper influence by either party. If the adjudicator has a substantial relationship or a position of responsibility, with either party, the possibility of a conflict of interest should be considered. The third is the availability of due process in the adjudication process. Finally, the aggregate win/loss record may affect the parties' perceptions of impartiality. The Qualifications of the Adjudicating Agent The qualifications of the adjudicator, his knowledge of industrial relations issues, education, practical experience, and age are generally accorded significant weight by the parties in determining his accept­ ability.^*- Labor and management representatives under collective bar­ gaining are shown to have a strong preference for the arbitrator of mature age that is prepared by extensive experience and training. This preference prevails despite evidence that such qualifications make little difference in the outcome of routine arbitration decisions. 22 2*-Fleming, Robben F., The Labor Arbitration Process (Urbana, 111. s The University of Illinois Press, 1965), pp. 219-220. 22Ibld., pp. 78-106. 20 The known qualifications of active arbitrators clearly reflect these preferences of the parties. In 1969, King surveyed the 134 arbi­ trators who had published at least five arbitration decisions in the Bureau of National Affairs Labor Arbitration Reports during the 1963 to 1969 period.^ His findings indicate that practicing arbitrators possess extensive academic and experience qualifications. age of this sample group was 58 years. The average Seventy percent possessed law degrees, while twenty percent had received advanced degrees in business, economics, or industrial relations. The remaining ten percent were scattered in several fields, predominantly in the social sciences and engineering. Approximately eighty percent of the sample group were part- time arbitrators. Of these, fifty percent were practicing attorneys and the remaining were professors in economics, business, or industrial relations. Finally, eighty percent of the sample group also had full­ time work experience in the labor relations field. McKelvey and Rogers administered a similar questionnaire survey, in 1969, to each of the 368 members of the National Academy of Arbitrators. 24 Their findings were in close agreement with those of King. Finally, it should be noted that the adjudicator's integrity is an Important factor in determining acceptability. However, because of the 23 King, Brian L., "Some Aspects of the Active Labor Arbitrator," Personnel Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2 (February 1971), pp. 115-123. 24 McKelvey, Jean T., and Derek L. Rogers, "Survey of the Arbitra­ tion Profession in 1969," Twenty Fourth Annual Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 1971, pp. 275-303. 21 difficulty involved in measuring the quality, it will not be addressed in this research. The Timeliness of the Adjudication Decisions Time delays constitute one of the most significant problems in adjudication. The factor of timeliness is important to the parties awaiting an arbitration decision that will determine some aspect of their relative rights. Both the employee and management need to know as promptly as possible the resolution of disputed matters. Timeliness is viewed as being of particular importance in discharge cases. In the absence of a decision the employer is unable to determine the status of the individual he may hire to replace the discharged employee. Like­ wise, the discharged employee may have difficulty in evaluating new job prospects without this decision. Moreover, the amount of back pay the employer may be required to pay if the employee wins the grievance increases with time. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) surveyed the timeliness of 5,446 arbitration cases it processed during the period of 1970-1977. 25 This survey indicates that an average of about six months elapsed between the date of the request for an arbitration and the date of the arbitration decision and the time elapsed from the request for arbitration to the appointment of the arbitrator averaged seven to eight 25 Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Thirtieth Annual Report. Fiscal Year 1977 (Washington, D. C.: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 1978), p. 41. Timeliness is treated in the F.M.C.S. Report and in this research as the time elapsed from one point in the process to a later point. 22 weeks. The time elapsed from the appointment to the hearing averaged about nine weeks. The time elapsed from the date of the arbitration hearing to the date of the decision averaged six to seven weeks per decision. The Cost of the Adjudication Decisions Cost is a factor that the parties may control by their selection of an arbitrator, and their use of transcripts, legal counsel and briefs. In general, arbitrators' fees tend to reflect the degree of experience and appropriate qualifications possessed by the arbitrator. Arbitrators' fees may range from as low as fifty dollars per decision for the inexperienced arbitrator working much as an intern in an expedited arbitration program, 26 to several hundred dollars per day for the highly experienced arbitrator. 27 The fee of the attorney retained to represent a party often exceeds the arbitrator's fee. 28 And, it is not unusual for the transcript to cost several hundred dollars for a single case. 29 The FMCS reports that a sample of 574 arbitrators referred by it in fiscal year 1977 charged an average of $733 per deci­ sion, including an average of $217 per day for time spent at the hearing and in writing the decision, and an average of $88 for expenses per case. 30 These costs may be particularly onerous for the union or 26 Daily Labor Report, October 17, 1978, p. C-l. 27 Op. Cit., Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, pp. 39-40. 28Ibid., p. 39. 29 Fo8sum, John A., Labor Relations (Dallas, Texas: Publications, Inc., 1979), p. 368. 30 Business Op. Cit., Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, p. 40. 23 employer that Is relatively small or financially weak. Even more burden­ some would be the impact of arbitration costs in a nonunion setting. Individual employees would encounter difficulty in assuming a fifty per­ cent share of the costs of arbitration, and as a practical matter the costs would most likely be carried by the employer. S u m m ary The impartiality and qualifications of the adjudicator, and the timeliness and cost of the adjudication decision are significant fac­ tors in determining acceptability. In collective bargaining settings, adjudication is typically performed by a jointly selected outside party in order to assure that the impartiality and qualifications of the adjudicator are acceptable to both labor and management. In noncol­ lective bargaining settings, where adjudicators are selected uni­ laterally by the employer the expected impartiality of any adjudicator may be determined by assessing his/her ability to render decisions that are independent of improper influence by management. The typical adjudication decision in a collective bargaining setting costs about $733, and is issued about six to seven weeks after the case is heard, or about eight to nine months after the case is first appealed to arbitra­ tion. These fairly substantial costs and time delays suggest that the impartiality and the qualifications of the adjudicator are more impor­ tant to the parties than the timeliness and cost of decisions. The parties are willing to accept these substantial costs and time delays in order to obtain the services of adjudicators that are acceptable in terms of impartiality and qualifications. CHAPTER THREE GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION IN NONCOLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETTINGS This chapter identifies the adjudication agencies used in noncol­ lective bargaining settings in the private and public sectors of employ­ ment. Data covering each sector are discussed separately. Published findings concerning adjudication in noncollective bargaining settings are very scant. In order to obtain more comprehensive data concerning the methods of adjudication used in state government the author con­ ducted a questionnaire survey. in this chapter. The results of the survey are reported The results of the literature and questionnaire sur­ veys will be used in Parts Two and Three to determine how the system of adjudication used in Michigan compares with approaches used in other noncollective bargaining settings. Private Sector Approaches Six empirical studies have been published concerning the use of grievance adjudication in noncollective bargaining, private employment settings. The National Industrial Conference Board conducted a survey of 800 companies in 1950, and identified 57 firms that had formal 24 25 grievance procedures.3- Two of the 57 companies provided procedures that included final and binding adjudication by a neutral agent. o In one case, the arbitrator was selected by agreement of a majority of an ad hoc committee consisting of three members appointed by the employee and three members appointed by the employer.3 The other procedure speci­ fied that a complete, written record of any unresolved grievance would be submitted for decision to an arbitrator selected by the Federal Media­ tion and Conciliation Service.4 A variety of approaches was used among the other 55 companies. A final and binding decision was provided by the company president in 24 cases, the general manager or plant superintendent in eleven cases, a vice-president in three cases, the chairman of the board in two cases, and the personnel director in two cases.^ A 1961 survey found that 25 percent of the 171 responding nonunion £ firms provided a formal procedure for handling employee grievances. Only four of the 21 companies with a grievance procedure reported the use of adjudication by an impartial outsider at the final step of ■^National Industrial Conference Board, Grievance Procedures in Nonunion Companies (New York, N. Y . : National Industrial Conference Board, 1950), pp. 12-24. Details concerning the sample size and the response rate were not reported. 2Ibid., pp. 15-18. 3Ibid., p. 16. 4Ibid., p. 17. 5lbid., p. 15. ^Industrial Relations News, November, 1961, cited in: Ronner, W. V., "Handling Grievances of Nonunion Employees," Personnel, Vol. 39, No. 2 (March-April 1962), p. 56. The study did not report the total number surveyed or the response rate. 26 7 C he p r o c e d u r e . No d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e m e th o d o f s e l e c t i o n o f im ­ p a r t i a l p a r t i e s w e re r e p o r te d . The f i n a l s t e p in o u t im p a r tia l a d ju d ic a tio n w as, in h a n d le d by a m anagem ent e v e ry s te p , th o s e p ro c e d u re s w ith ­ o ffic ia l. The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), in 1958, studied grievance procedures in 61 nonunion firms that were members of its Personnel Poli­ cies Forum, and identified the use of final and binding adjudication by a neutral third party in two firms. No information was reported concerning the method of selecting the adjudicator. Without exception, the grievance procedure in the other 59 firms provided adjudication by a management official.® Again in 1968 and in 1978, BNA studied the grievance procedures of the nonunion members of its Personnel Policies Q Forum. The findings of these subsequent studies were substantially identical to the findings reported in 1958. Thirty-two nonunion grie­ vance procedures were studied in 1978, and, of these 32, only two pro­ vided for adjudication by a neutral outsider. In each of these two procedures employees shared in the selection of the neutral outsider. The other 30 procedures provided for adjudication by a management official. ^Op. Cit., Ronner, p. 61. It should be noted that the use of arbi­ tration reported here far exceeds that found by the other studies. How­ ever, the source of this Information did not report enough details to allow for a check on the reliability of the information. Q Bureau of National Affairs, "Grievance Procedures for Unorganized Employees," Survey No. 49. Personnel Policies Forum (Washington, D. C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1958), pp. 2-4. ^Bureau of Employees," PPF Affairs, 1958). Employees," PPF Affairs, 1979), National Affairs, "Personnel Policies for Unorganized Survey. No. 88 (Washington, D. C.: Bureau of National Bureau of National Affairs, "Policies for Unorganized Survey. No. 125 (Washington, D. C.: Bureau of National pp. 9-11. 27 The moat extensive examination of nonunion grievance procedures was conducted by Scott in 1 9 6 4 . ^ industrial groupings. Scott surveyed 1,800 firms across six Among 793 usable responses, 55 companies reported having formal grievance procedures, and 738 reported having no formal grievance procedure. Among the 738 companies with no formal procedure, 518 companies reported they had no formal or informal grievance policies, 184 companies indicated that they utilized an Informal "open door" policy, and 36 companies indicated they had a formal grievance policy but no formal grievance procedure. Two of the 55 firms that had a formal procedure provided for final and binding adjudication of unresolved grievances by a neutral agent. The adjudicating agent in each case was a federal judge.^ Among the 53 remaining companies, a final and binding decision was provided by the company president in 45 cases and by a review board consisting of man­ agement officials in five cases.^ The findings of these studies indicate that only a small minority, i.e., no more than 10 to 20 percent, of nonunion private sector firms provide formal grievance procedures, and that, among these, very few firms provide for the use of adjudication by a neutral party. Manage­ ment officials adjudicate grievances in nearly all the procedures sur­ veyed. l^Scott, William G., The Management of Conflict, Appeals Systems in Organizations (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965), pp. 56 88. ^Details concerning the method of selection were not reported. ■*-2pp, Cit., Scott, pp. 68-71. was not available in three cases. Information concerning adjudication 28 Public Sector Approaches The earliest comprehensive survey of grievance arbitration In the public sector was conducted In 1958 by Killlngsworth and Segal. Their study covered eighteen government jurisdictions, including the federal government, the largest states, and the largest municipalities, and included 38 percent of all government employment at the time. Killlngsworth identified four types of adjudication agencies in his sample of jurisdictions.^ The most frequently used variation was ad­ judication by, or under the control of, a Civil Service Commission. The second most popular approach was adjudication by a permanent appeal board, established by law and independent of operating agencies and the Civil Service Commission. The third most frequently used type was ad­ judication by an impartial adjudicator selected jointly by the parties. The fourth category was a miscellaneous grouping of various types in­ cluding adjudication by employer appointed hearing boards and by agency heads or other operating officials. The only study in recent years that attempted to identify the types of adjudication used in noncollective bargaining settings in public employment was conducted by Derber in 1 9 7 3 . This study was limited to ^killlngsworth, Charles, and Melvin Segal, Grievance Machinery for State Civil Service Employees in Michigan (Lansing, Mi.: Labor and Industrial Relations Center, Michigan State University, 1958), pp. 12-37. Also see: Killlngsworth, Charles, "Grievance Adjudication in Public Employment," Arbitration Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (January 1958), p. 8. 14Ibid., pp. 8-9. ^Derber, Milton, Peter Pashler, and Mary Beth Ryan. Collective Bargaining bv State Government in the Twelve Midwestern States (Cham­ paign, 111.: University of Illinois, 1974), pp. 37-42, 68-69. 29 twelve midwestern states. Derber found that formal grievance proce­ dures were provided for state employees In each of the twelve states surveyed. The procedures In three of the states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio, were negotiated between the state and various employee organi­ zations. Each of these procedures included final and binding arbitra­ tion by a jointly selected neutral. The other nine states did not per­ mit collective bargaining by state employees. In these states grievance procedures were provided unilaterally by the state. Eight of the nine noncollective bargaining states provided for final and binding adjudica­ tion by an agent or agency selected unilaterally by the employer.^ Among the types of agents or agencies used to decide grievances were the state personnel director, the chief administrative officer of the state, the Civil Service Commission, and individual department heads. 17 One state, Indiana, provided for final and binding arbitration of all unresolved grievances by an arbitrator selected jointly by the parties. 18 Survey of Grievance Adjudication in State Employment In order to collect more complete data concerning the methods of adjudication used in state government a questionnaire was sent to the State Personnel Director in each of the 49 states exclusive of Michigan. A response was received from each state by September 15, 1978. Follow- up telephone interviews were conducted with personnel officials in ten -^ I b i d ., pp. 37-42. -^ I b i d ., pp. 37-43. ^•®Ibid., pp. 40-41. ■^The questionnaire is contained in Appendix A. 19 30 states in October, 1978, to clarify the content of their questionnaire responses. The following discussion is based on the responses to the questionnaire and the follow-up telephone interviews. Each of the 49 states provides a formal grievance procedure of one type or another for use by its state employees. These procedures are provided either unilaterally by the state, or through negotiations be­ tween the state and an employee organization. Grievance procedures, negotiated in collective bargaining agreements are available to state civil service employees in 20 states. 20 In each of these 20 states, certain groups of employees not covered by collective bargaining have access to grievance procedures provided unilaterally by the state. Gen­ erally speaking, employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement in such states have access to the unilateral procedure for certain types of grievances, while employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement generally lack access to negotiated procedures. In 17 of the 20 states the negotiated procedures provide for final and binding arbitration by a jointly selected arbitrator, and in three states other approaches are used at the final step. In the state of Washington, the negotiated procedure culminates in "final and binding" arbitration by the State Personnel Board rather than by a private arbi­ trator. Negotiated procedures in Vermont terminate with a decision by the Vermont Labor Relations Board. ^T h e s e states are: In New Jersey, the negotiated Alaska Connecticut Florida Hawaii Illinois Massachusetts Minnesota Montana New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Washington Wisconsin 31 procedures provide for review and recommendations by a fact finder at the final step rather than a final and binding arbitration decision. Grievance procedures are provided unilaterally by the state in the 30 states that do not engage In collective bargaining with state civil service employees. Considerable variation exists among these 30 states in the type of adjudication agency used with several states using more than one type. Analysis of the questionnaire results indicate that seven fundamentally different types are distinguishable in terms of which official or agency is authorized to make a final and binding deci­ sion on grievances. These seven types are: 1. the head of the individual agency or department that employs the grievant (10 states), 2. the chief administrator or personnel official of the state (5 states), 3. a full time or ad hoc Hearing Officer that is employed by the state in a unit that is separate from the agency that employs the grievant (1 state), 4. an oversight authority, such as a Civil Service Commission, which has responsibility for the entire state personnel system (25 states), 5. a special purpose appeals or review authority which is estab­ lished solely for the purpose of deciding grievances either on an ad hoc or a standing basis (4 states), 6. a Tripartite Panel, including a member selected by the employ­ er, a member selected by the employee, and a member selected by the other two members (1 state), and 7. a jointly selected private arbitrator (1 state). For the purpose of assessing the impartiality of the adjudication agency, the most important difference among the seven types is the extent to which each possesses management responsibility at one level or another on behalf of the state employer. At one extreme is the agency or 32 department head, who, in addition to making final and binding decisions on grievances, has direct management responsibility for the operation of the unit that employs the grievant. At the other extreme is the jointly selected private arbitrator, who, in addition to being accept­ able to both contending parties, lacks responsibility for the operation of the unit that employs the grievant. Similar to the arbitrator in independence from management responsibility is the jointly selected neutral member of the Tripartite Panel. The special purpose appeal or review board is typically composed of members who have no management responsibility, but are appointed by the state. Panel members are ordinarily highly respected and qualified private citizens who are appointed because of their reputation for objec­ tivity and impartiality. Members of such panels typically are not de­ pendent on the state for their principal source of income. The Hearing Officer typically does not have management responsi­ bility for any aspect of state government, but is selected and employed directly by the state. Thus, the ability of the Hearing Officer to exercise independent judgment is brought into question by his or her dependence on state employment for a livelihood. The Civil Service Commission is typically made up of citizens of the state appointed by the governor on a bipartisan basis who are charged with representing the interest of the general public in the exercise of their oversight authority. A major portion of the responsibility of the Commission in most states is to determine overall personnel man­ agement policy and to establish the general wage levels of broad classi­ fications of state employees. However, even though the Commission has very significant management responsibility, its involvement is remote 33 from agency or department level concerns. Theoretically, its respon­ sibility for the public good transcends the management concerns of indi­ vidual state departments, and in any given state may include the res­ ponsibility to insure that state employees have access to well function­ ing and impartially administered grievance machinery. Thus, at the level of the Civil Service Commission the possibility of an objective and impartial treatment of employee grievances does exist. F in a lly , re tu rn in g a lm o s t f u l l c i r c l e , to p p e r s o n n e l o f f i c i a l o f t h e s t a t e f o r th e m anagem ent o f s t a t e v o lv e d w ith th e day to th e c h ie f a d m in is tr a to r and each b ear s u b s ta n tia l re s p o n s ib ility g o v e r n m e n t, th o u g h n e i t h e r is c lo s e ly in ­ day m anagem ent c o n c e rn s o f i n d iv id u a l d e p a rtm e n ts . Appendix B summarizes the incidence of these several types across the 30 noncollective bargaining states. Most states use more than one type of final step, and a high percentage (about 80 percent) use a gen­ eral oversight authority to make final and binding decisions on at least some types of grievances. In 12 states the general oversight authority makes the final decision on virtually all types of grievances and appeals. In e ig h t s ta te s b in d in g d e c is io n s by th e h ead o f g e n e r a l o v e r s ig h t a u th o r ity m akes f i n a l and o n a fe w t y p e s k e y e c o n o m ic i s s u e s o f g rie v a n c e s th e of cases, o r s e rio u s d is c ip lin a r y and a p p e a ls a r e s u b je c t to ty p ic a lly th o s e in v o lv in g a c t i o n , w h ile o th e r ty p e s a f i n a l and b in d in g d e c is io n t h e a g e n c y o r d e p a r t m e n t t h a t e m p lo y s t h e g r i e v a n t . In five states, the responsibility for providing a final and binding decision is allocated among the general oversight authority, appeals board, and the chief administrator. In most of these states the special appeals board or the oversight authority handles the final determination 34 of discipline matters, while most other matters are-decided by the top personnel official or administrator. In the remaining states a number of different approaches exist, several of which are particularly noteworthy. In Maryland, grievants may appeal a broad range of Issues, including classification matters, to a private arbitrator whose decision is advisory to a final and bind­ ing decision by the State Secretary of Personnel. The costs of the arbitrator are shared equally between the parties. In Utah, the governor appoints a Hearings Officer who is employed as a full-time classified employee to make final and binding decisions on all types of cases except those that involve serious disciplinary actions and reallocations. The excluded matters may be appealed to a final and binding decision by the State Merit System Council. In Vermont, grievants have three avenues of redress. Probationary employees who have been adversely affected by prohibited discrimination may appeal to the State Employees Labor Relations Board* Regular emr- ployees may appeal adverse reallocation and performance evaluation deci­ sions to the State Personnel Director. All other types of cases may be appealed to the Vermont Labor Relations Board. The unilateral procedure in Virginia provides for two unusual fea­ tures: an employee relations counselor and a Tripartite Panel. The employee relations counselor is provided at no charge to advise and represent employees who request assistance in processing grievances. Employees may use a toll free number to telephone the counselor's office from throughout the state. The Tripartite Panel makes final and bind­ ing decisions on all types of grievances and appeals. The panel is 35 composed of three members: (a) one selected by the employer, (b) one selected by the grlevant, and (c) an additional member selected jointly by (a) and (b) from any source. The decision of the panel is final and binding with no possibility for administrative reversal unless the panel exceeds its authority. Indiana is the only state that authorizes the use of private ar­ bitrators at the final step of the procedure. Under the Indiana system any nonprobationary employee may file a grievance if his or her employ­ ment status is changed involuntarily, or if he or she deems conditions of employment to be unsatisfactory. erally applied with the result that the range of issues that may be appealed is almost unlimited. This provision has been very lib­ After the departmental steps have been exhausted the grlevant may appeal any type of grievance to the State Employees Appeals Commission. The decision of the commission may be appealed to a mutually selected private arbitrator or to judicial review in the courts. ties. The decision of the arbitrator is binding on both par­ The costs of the arbitrator are shared equally between the par­ ties. In summary, final and binding adjudication by a jointly selected arbitrator is available only in Indiana and for state civil service employees under collective bargaining agreements. Also, a few states provide for Tripartite Panels or specialized grievance appeals boards. However, the vast majority of states rely on Civil Service Commission or other general oversight authority to make final and binding deci­ sions on grievances. In many of these states, the Civil Service Com­ mission makes decisions on certain types of cases, such as dismissals, 36 while the department head or state personnel director has jurisdiction over other matters. CHAPTER FOUR THE PARTIES' PERCEPTIONS OF GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION Chapter four surveys the empirical research that has sought to assess employers', employees', and employee representatives' perceptions of presently used types of grievance adjudication. Emphasis was placed on the identification of empirical studies that assessed the perceived acceptability of, or the participating parties' satisfaction with, the utilized method of grievance adjudication. Few studies investigated these subjects. The National Industrial Conference Board, in its 1950 survey of nonunion grievance procedures, found that most nonunion employers were unwilling to provide for adjudication of unresolved grievances by an outside neutral party. The most commonly cited reasons for employer reluctance to use outside arbitration were the following: 1. Employers are unwilling to relinquish control over the grievance outcome to an outside authority. 2. Employers perceive outsiders as unfamiliar with plant practices and, consequently, unqualified to provide fair and practical solutions to grievances. 3. The monetary cost of using an outside party to adjudicate griev­ ances is viewed as exceeding the financial resources of indivi­ dual employees in a nonunion setting. 4. Individual employees in a nonunion plant lack the competence and expertise to prepare and present arguments in formal arbi­ tration proceedings. 37 38 5. The principal function of is to restrict the use of resolved grievances; in a of disruption exists, and is unnecessary. adjudication in a unionized setting strikes and lockouts in deciding un­ nonunion plant no significant threat thus the use of outside adjudication The two nonunion employers that did permit impartial adjudication of unresolved grievances explained their policy as follows: 1. The company wants to "bend over backwards" to assure that em­ ployees receive a fair and unbiased hearing on grievances.2 2. The provision for impartial adjudication "gives credence to the sincerity of management to make the whole grievance procedure a workable one."3 Lawshe and Guion attempted to identify management and union views on what constitutes a good, or an acceptable, grievance procedure. They found that the management-oriented respondents tended to agree with the following statements: "No outside persons should be called in on grievance negotiations." "Levels should be set beyond which some grievances can't be taken." "A grievance procedure should give the worker a chance to take his grievance directly to top management if he wants to do so." Union-oriented respondents tended to agree with the statement: "Arbitration which is final and binding to both parties should be the last step in the grievance procedure."^ ^National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., Grievance Procedures in Nonunionized Companies (New York, N. Y.: National Industrial Confer­ ence Board, Inc., 1950), pp. 15-17. 2Ibid., p. 16. 3Ibid., p. 17. ^Lawshe, C. H., and R. M. Guion, "A Comparison of Management-Labor Attitudes Toward Grievance Procedures," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1 (January 1951), pp. 1-17. The survey group included a total of 324 respondents, including managers, union official, employees, econo­ mists, and psychologists. 39 In a study of unionized grievance procedures in British industry, Thomson and Murray asked supervisors and middle managers to rate their understanding of, and their satisfaction with, the grievance procedures they use as representatives of management. They found that 96 percent of managers and 89 percent of supervisors had a very clear or a fairly clear understanding of their grievance procedures, and 60 percent of mana­ gers and 50 percent of supervisors were highly satisfied with their grievance procedures.^ However, acceptability of various methods of grievance adjudication was not addressed. Brett and Goldberg conducted a study of the causes of strikes in the coal industry. They surveyed 124 coal miners employed at four mines, and obtained 113 usable responses. Their findings indicated that 90 percent of the miners surveyed believed that excessive delay in the griev­ ance procedure, including the adjudication phase, was a definite cause of strikes, and 62 percent of the miners believed that the union lost g grievances because arbitrators were biased or unfair. Arbitrators are selected jointly by the union and management in the coal industry. Therefore, it would be expected that most mining employees would per­ ceive the arbitrators on the whole to be impartial. Nevertheless, the results of this study suggest that employee perceptions of impartiality may be independent of the method of selection. However, because of the high level of wildcat strikes and other unique conditions of the coal industry, these findings should be received cautiously. ^Thomson, A. W. J . , and V. V. Murray, Grievance Procedures (Lexing­ ton, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976), pp. 109-115. ^Brett, Jeanne M . , and Stephen Goldberg, Wildcat Strikes in the Bituminous Coal Mining Industry: A Preliminary Report, Unpublished, May, 1978. 40 In a survey of their memberships, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Michigan State Councils 7 and 55 found that 61 percent were in favor of compulsory arbitration of grievances while 10 percent were against arbitration, and 28 percent were undecided on the issue.^ Numerous studies of union member attitudes have been published. Without exception, these studies either do not address the question of how union members view grievance adjudication, or at most asked one or two general questions concerning member satisfaction with the quality O of union representation provided under the grievance procedure. ^American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Michigan State Councils 7 and 55, Union Member Attitude Survey, Unpublished Report, 1956. ^Amundson, Norman, and Janet Grant, Union Member and Attitude Survey, Western Graphic Arts Union (Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Industrial Relations, November 1974). Barkan, Alexander B., "The Union Member: Profiles and Attitudes," American Federationist, Vol. 8, No. 8 (August 1967). Berstein, Irving, "West Coast Trade Union Characteristics, Member­ ship and Influence," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 82, No. 5 (May 1959). Derber, Milton, Ellison Chalmers, Ross Stagner, and Milton Edelman, The Local Union-Management Relationship (Urbana: Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, 1960). Dix, Keith, and Abram Flory, Political Attitudes of West Virginia AFL-CIO Union Members (Charleston: Institute for Labor Studies, Appala­ chia Center, West Virginia University, 1970). Karsh, Bernard, "Union Traditions and Membership Apathy," Labor Law Journal, September, 1957. Rosen, Hjalmar, and R. A. Rosen, The Union Member Speaks (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955). Sayles, Leonard R., and George Strauss, "What the Worker Really Thinks of His Union," Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1953. Seidman, Joel, Jack London, Bernard Karsh, and Daisey Tagliacozzo, The Worker Views His Union (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958). Stagner, Ross, Psychology of Industrial Conflict (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956). Tannenbaum, Arnold S., and Robert L. Kahn, Participation in Local Unions (Evanston, 111.: Row Peterson, 1958). Uphoff, W. H., and Marvin D. Dunnette, Understanding the Union Member (Minneapolis: Industrial Relations Center, University of Minne­ sota Press, 1956). 41 A su rv e y o f re s e a rc h to lo c a te s tu d ie s c o n c e rn in g o r su rv e y o r a ttitu d e s to w a rd , v a r io u s a p p e a rs th e o rie s th a t e m p lo y e e j o b in s tru m e n ts s a tis fa c tio n t h a t e x a m in e d p e r c e p t i o n s o f , m e th o d s o f g r i e v a n c e a d j u d i c a t i o n . and a p p ro a c h e s fa ile d to th e s tu d y o f jo b It s a tis fa c tio n have not considered the method of grievance resolution, per s e , as being a v a ria b le re la te d to jo b s a tis fa c tio n . g * Baehr, M. E., "A Factorial Study of the SRA Employee Inventory," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 7 (July 1954), pp. 319-336. Dawis, R. V., H. A. Lofquist, and D. J. Weiss, A Theory of Work Adjustment (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1968). Lock, E. A., "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction," in M. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1975). Robinson, J. P., R. Athanasiou, and K. B. Head, Measures of Occupa­ tional Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics (Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1969). Rothlisberger, F. S., and W. J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939). Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin, The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work andRetirement (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969). Vitales, M. S., Motivation and Morale in Industry (New York: Wiley, 1964). Vroom, V. H . , Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1964). Wanous, J. P., and E. E. Lawler, "Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 56, 1972. Weiss, D. J., R. V. Dawis, G. W. England, and L. H. Lofquist, Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Minneapolis: Uni­ versity of Minnesota, 1967). 42 Finally, studies of the causes of grievance activity were considered. None of these studies considered how the method of grievance adjudication is perceived by procedure participants.^ Summary An analysis of empirical research which has touched on the question of grievance adjudication acceptability yields the following findings: 1. Nonunion employers have a strong preference for management controlled grievance adjudication, primarily because they ob­ ject in principle to allowing a neutral outside authority to made decisions that are final and binding on management. 2. A few nonunion employers report that they perceive that employees lack the financial resources and expertise necessary to parti­ cipate in impartial adjudication. 3. In rare instances, nonunion employers establish impartial adju­ dication in order to enhance the perceived fairness of the procedure. 4. Unions have a strong preference for jointly controlled adju­ dication. ^Ash, Phillip, "The Parties to the Grievance," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (January 1970), pp. 13-38. Price, John, John Nowack DeWire, and Kenneth Scherkel, "Three Studies of Grievances," Personnel Journal, Vol. 55, No. 1 (January 1976), pp. 33-37. DeWire, J. E., Comparison of Multiple Grievants Versus Non-grlevants in Industry (Altanta, Ga.: School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1972). Eckerman, A. C., "An Analysis of Grievances and Aggrieved Em­ ployees in a Machine Shop and Foundry," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 2 (February 1948), pp. 255-269. Fleishman, Edwin A., and Edwin F. Harris, "Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnovers," Personnel Psycho­ logy, Vol. 15, No. 1 (January 1962), pp. 43-56. Kissler, Gary D., "Grievance Activity and Union Membership: A Study of Government Employees," Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 62, No. 4 (April 1977), pp. 459-462. Peach, D. A., and E. R. Livernash, Grievance Initiation and Reso­ lution A Study in Basic Steel (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1974). Ronan, W. W . , "Work Group Attributes and Grievances Activity," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 1 (January 1964), pp. 38-41. 43 5. One study of coal miners reports that a large majority of those surveyed perceive that jointly selected arbitrators are biased In favor of management. However, these findings should be limited to the unique circumstances of the coal Industry. Nearly all of the literature that deals with grievance adjudication does not include any consideration of how the parties perceive different methods of grievance adjudication. Rather, the bulk of the literature Is concerned with union members' perceptions of the quality of union representation, and with the causes of grievances. The few studies that have considered the perceived acceptability of adjudication have not compiled empirical data that is sufficient to constitute a meaningful benchmark to be compared with the data compiled in this study of the Michigan system. PART TWO THE MICHIGAN SYSTEM OF ADJUDICATION CHAPTER FIVE THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF GRIEVANCE ADJUDICATION IN MICHIGAN Organization of the Michigan Civil Service The Michigan Civil Service is made up of 19 operating departments and the Department of Civil Service, which houses all staff personnel functions that are supervised by the Michigan Civil Service Commission. Figure One illustrates the organizational structure of the Civil Service. Figure Two illustrates the structure of the Department of Civil Service. The Michigan Civil Service Commission, which derives its authority from the State Constitution, is responsible for determining overall employ­ ment policy and regulating the employment process in the state civil service. Article XI of the Constitution, which establishes conditions pertaining generally to public offices and state employment, provides in Section 5: "The Civil Service Commission shall be non-salaried and shall consist of four persons, not more than two of whom shall be members of the same political party, appointed by the govern­ or for terms of eight years, no two of which shall expire in the same year." Section 5 also establishes the Commission's responsibilities: "The Commission shall classify all positions in the classified service according to their respective duties and responsibili­ ties, fix rates of compensation for all classes of positions, approve or disapprove disbursements for all personal services, determine by competitive examination and performance exclusively 44 Figure One The Michigan Civil Service Civil Service Commission State Personnel Department of Director Civil Service Operating Departments Agriculture Attorney General Labor Natural Resources Licensing and Regulation Public Health Auditor General Civil Rights Commerce Corrections Education Social Services Management and Budget Mental Health Military Affairs State Highways State Police Treasury Figure Two The Department of Civil Service Civil Service Commission State Personnel Commission Director Appeals Department of Civil Service Classification Bureau Labor Relations Administration Personnel Services Bureau Division Bureau Employee Relations Division (Meet and Confer) Hearings Division Rules Standard Division Selection Bureau 47 on the basis of merit, efficiency and fitness the qualifi­ cations of all candidates for positions in the classified service, make rules and regulations covering all personnel transactions, and regulate all conditions of employment in the classified service." Finally, Section 5 provides: "To enable the Commission to exercise its powers, the legis­ lature should appropriate to the Commission for the ensuing fiscal year a sum not less than one percent of the aggregate payroll of the classified service for the preceding fiscal year, as certified by the Commission." The administration of the Commission powers and responsibilities are vested in the State Personnel Director who reports directly to the Com­ mission. The Department of Civil Service carries out the Commission's functions under the supervision of the State Personnel Director. The Hearings Division, which administers the adjudication process, is housed within the Bureau of Labor Relations in the Department of Civil Service. 1 Development of Grievance Adjudication from 1938 to 1971 Michigan first provided a formal grievance mechanism to State Civil Service employees in 1938. This procedure provided for direct appeals to the Civil Service Commission on separations from employment and alleged Much of the material in this chapter was collected through inter­ views with: Otis Hardy, Director of the Labor Relations Bureau, John O'Connor, Commission Appeals Officer and State Arbitration Officer, Richard Myers, Director of the Hearings Division, Susan Schoettler, Acting Director of the Hearings Division, Hearing Officers Sylvia Elliot, John Fitch, William Hutchens, Hal Lesse, Alvin Washington, Edward Middle­ ton, and Rodiville Morriss, John Pouch, Personnel Officer, Department of Mental Health, Michael Mastemak, Personnel Officer, Department of Social Services, James Wilson, Personnel Officer, Department of Management and Budget, Michael Cain, American Federation of State, County, and Muni­ cipal Employees representative, and Donald Johnson, Michigan State Em­ ployees Association representative. 48 violations of Commission rules. were advisory to agency heads. 2 Commission decisions on dismissals Hearings were not granted on conditions of work not covered by Commission rules. State authorities viewed the procedure as a means to provide a check on violations of the state merit system, and thus as a protection of the public's interest in sound state government as well as a benefit to state employees. In 1941, the Civil Service Commission was reestablished through an amendment to the state constitution. Later, in 1941, the new Commis­ sion established a three-member Hearings Board to decide dismissal griev­ ances appealed above the agency level. The Hearings Board was composed of the State Personnel Director, the Legal Advisor to the Commission, and one member selected by the State Personnel Director. Hearings Board decisions could be appealed for review by the Commission, but were bind­ ing on the parties unless overturned by the Commission. In October, 1941, the Commission revised the procedure to permit any employee, appointing authority, or citizen to appeal to the Commis­ sion any decision of the State Personnel Director or an appointing author­ ity on any administrative matter affecting Civil Service. The Commis­ sion further provided that whenever an appeal of an appointing authority decision was made, the State Personnel Director would conduct an investi­ gation and attempt to effect a settlement.^ If a settlement was not ^Michigan's first State Civil Service Commission was established by statute in 1938. q Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article XI, Section 5. ^The Commission also replaced the State Personnel Director and his appointee on the Hearings Board with two members appointed by the Com­ mission from the public at large. The Commission was thus composed of two Commission appointees plus the Commission legal advisor. 49 attained, the Director would present the appeal and his recommendation on its resolution to the Commission. The Commission, or, on the Com­ mission's order, the Hearings Board would then hear and make a disposi­ tion of the appeal. In December, 1944, the Commission revised the procedure to provide that all appeals of State Personnel Director or appointing authority decisions would be heard by the Hearings Board. As before, investiga­ tion and settlement efforts by the State Personnel Director on appeals of appointing authority decisions would precede consideration of appeals by the Hearings Board.^ In October, 1954, the Commission established the policy that the Hearings Board would operate more as an administrative fact finding body than as a judicial body. The Board would still decide the materiality of the facts and issues before it, and decide the issues through appli­ cation of Civil Service rules. However, hearings would be conducted informally, more similar to administrative meetings than court room proceedings. The parties would be allowed to present all evidence they deemed pertinent to the case at hand, and the Board was responsible for insuring that a sound record was available to make its decision. The Commission's legal advisor was withdrawn from the Board, and the Board was expanded to 12 members, appointed by the Commission, who shared the Chairmanship on a rotating basis.^ ^Killingsworth, Charles C., The Michigan Civil Service Hearings Board, Report and Recommendations (Lansing, Mi.: Labor and Industrial Relations Center, Michigan State University, 1958), pp. 12-16. 6Ibid., p. 15. 50 The Commission, in September, 1957, affirmed its policy of denying hearings to probationary employees, except in cases involving a specific charge of prohibited discrimination. During 1957 and 1958, Dr. Charles C. Killingsworth and Dr. Melvin Segal of Michigan State University, at the request of the Commission, conducted a study of the grievance procedure. In January, 1959, the Commission adopted the following recommendations of the study: 1. The Commission staff should thoroughly investigate all appeals from employees on dismissals, suspensions, de­ motions, service ratings, and related matters. 2. The Hearings Board should be continued. Experienced arbitrators should be appointed to the Hearings Board, and at least one experienced arbitrator should serve as a Board member at each hearing. 3. The Commission should experiment with the use of arbitra­ tors on some types of cases on an ad hoc basis. 4. Hearings Board decisions should contain carefully reason­ ed evaluations of pertinent facts and testimony. 5. A simply worded description of hearing policies and pro­ cedures should be developed and provided to every agency and appellant. 6. The Commission should consider adoption of the "Procedural Standards for Arbitrators" issued by the American Arbitra­ tion Association. 7. Probationary employees should be denied hearings on service ratings except in cases involving specific allegations of prohibited discrimination. 8. Provisional appointees of less than six months should be denied hearings on dismissals unless specific allega­ tions of prohibited discrimination are involved. 9. Appeals should continue to be permitted on: all examina­ tion matters; reclassifications; disciplinary matters; and other matters, including service ratings, compensa­ tion, layoffs, employee preference or seniority, trans­ fers, annual sick leave, and resignations. 51 10. Oral hearings before the Commission should be limited to certain types of cases, to be determined by the Commission. 11. New evidence should be received by the Commission only after a showing of good cause for a failure to submit the evidence earlier. 12. The Commission should direct the departments to establish written grievance procedures in conformance with certain minimum standards. 13. The Commission should design a model grievance procedure to be made available to departments for their use in de­ veloping their own procedures. 14. Predisciplinary fact finding hearings conducted by de­ partments should allow employees the right of representa­ tion and the right to call witnesses on their own behalf. 15. The Commission should assure compliance by all agencies with its minimum standards for grievance procedures. 16. The Commission should provide training in grievance handling to agency personnel. In 1966, Michigan state government was reorganized into 19 princi­ pal departments plus the Department of Civil Service. The Commission, in 1967, after extensive consultation with departments and employee organizations, established new minimum standards for departmental griev­ ance procedures: 1. Departments should encourage day to day dialogue between employees and supervisors in order to identify and re­ solve problems prior to use of the grievance procedure. 2. Departments should provide standard forms for use in pro­ cessing grievances. 3. Time limits were established for the processing of griev­ ances . 4. Department head review should constitute the step prior to a hearing by the Hearings Board. 5. Recognized employee organizations may confer with depart­ ments concerning the development and implementation of new grievance procedures. 52 6. Complaints partmental grlevable, conference which constitute demands for changes in de­ rules or conditions of employment are not but may be taken up under the Commission's procedure. In 1971, the Commission limited the types of cases that could be appealed to the Hearings Board. Appeals of lost time of eight hours or less, counseling memoranda, and reprimands were excluded from appeal above the department level.7 Recent Developments. 1972-1978 The Commission, on April 3, 1972, established a single, statewide grievance procedure to replace the separate departmental procedures that have been in use since 1967. This procedure, which is still in use today, provides for five levels of appeal: 1. to the immediate supervisor; 2. to an intermediate level supervisor; 3. to the department head or his designated representative; 4. to a Civil Service Hearing Officer or and, 5. to the Civil Service Commission. to an outside arbitrator; g The costs of appeals to Hearing Officers are borne by the state. Arbitration fees and expenses are shared equally between the department and the employee or employee organization. The decisions of Hearing Officers and arbitrators may be appealed to the Commission. Employees are provided an automatic right of appeal to the Commission on dismissal cases. All other types of cases are granted leave to appeal to the 7Ibid., p. 15. ®Ibid., p. 15. 53 Commission only in the event that arbitrary personnel actions or violation of Commission rules are involved. 9 The Commission, in 1972, provided for the use of full-time Civil Service staff Hearing Officers to hear cases at Step 4 in addition to the ad hoc Hearings Board members used exclusively before that time. At the discretion of Civil Service, an appeal to a Step 4 Hearing Officer may be assigned either to a full-time staff Hearing Officer, or to a part-time, ad hoc Hearing Officer selected from a panel of labor arbi­ trators, lawyers, and labor relations professors. During the period from October, 1973, through March, 1974, the State Legislature's "Special Committee to Study Civil Service Policies and Operations," chaired by Representative Robert Crim, conducted public hearings and received testimony on many facets of the State Civil Ser­ vice System. The Committee's findings contained specific conclusions concerning the grievance procedure: 1. A large number of state employees lack the confidence that they are treated fairly in the present system of grievance settlement; and 2. The Commission should consult with employee organiza­ tions and other interested parties to streamline, over­ haul, and simplify the state grievance procedure. During and following the period of the Crim Committee Study, the Commission implemented several changes in the administration of the grievance procedure: ^Refer to the Michigan Grievance Procedure, Section 5, in Appendix C, for details of grievance appeals process. ^•®A broad spectrum of participants contributed to the testimony including Commission members, representatives of departments and em­ ployee organizations, Department of Civil Service staff personnel, em­ ployees, and members of the public. •^Report of the Special Committee to Study Civil Service Policies and Operations, 1974, pp. 6-7. 54 1. In November, 1974, the Office of Mediation and Hearings (subsequently changed to the Hearings Division) was created to handle appeals to Civil Service Hearing Of­ ficers. Thus, the Department of Civil Service adjudica­ tion function was to be supervised and administered separately from its employee relations advocacy functions. 2. In July, 1975, the transfer of Technical Hearing Officers from the Classifications and Testing Divisions was com­ pleted. Thus, technical appeals would be handled in a unit that was administratively separate from the divi­ sion against which the appeal was lodged. 3. The Chief Hearing Officer would no longer co-sign Hear­ ing Officer decisions. 4. Hearing Officers would no longer discuss their decision drafts with the State Personnel Director or anyone else. 5. The Administrative Procedures Act and the rules of the American Arbitration Association would serve as guides to the conduct of Civil Service Step 4 hearings. 6. The use of a tape recorder to record grievance hearings would be replaced by the use of professional court re­ porters . 7. Only the Commission would deny review of or adjudicate appeals. 8. The grlevant*s right of appeal in dismissal cases would be guaranteed. ^ During 1975, full-time Civil Service Hearing Officers were increas­ ed from one to four, thus enabling more cases to be heard by full-time Hearing Officers. By 1978, the number of full-time Hearing Officers had been increased to eight. Also, during 1975, the use of an expedited hearing procedure was implemented to supplement the formal, evidentiary hearing procedure used exclusively prior to that time. The expedited procedure was designed ^Memorandum dated December 30, 1974, from the Chief Hearing Officer to the State Personnel Director. 55 to be used for grievances involving relatively simple issues and little potential loss to either party. Expedited hearings were scheduled for one hour or less, involved the presentation of only oral arguments, ordinarily would not require witnesses, and excluded the use of a court reporter. The object was to reduce the case backlog of pending appeals and to achieve a more timely resolution of grievances. However, no fix­ ed time limit for issuance of decisions on expedited cases was provided. In May, 1975, the position of Commission Appeals Officer was esta­ blished to administer appeals to the Commission. Presently, the position incumbent also coordinates appeals to arbitration and conducts prearbi­ tration conferences. A significant change in the grievance procedure was ordered by the Commission at its meeting in May, 1978. Largely as a result of pres­ sure caused by a large number of discharge grievances involving allega­ tions of patient abuse in the Department of Mental Health, the Commis­ sion extended the use of outside arbitration to dismissal grievances. Formerly, only nondismissal grievances could be taken to an outside arbi­ trator. At the same time, the Commission clarified its policy concern­ ing appeals of arbitration to the Commission. The clarification pro­ vided that the Commission would defer to arbitration unless the arbi­ tration hearing was unfair or irregular, or the arbitrator's decision was contrary or repugnant to civil service policies. Current Operations The Hearings Division administers all appeals to Civil Service Step 4. When an appeal is filed, a Hearings Division Scheduling 56 Officer conducts an investigation to determine if the grievance qualifies to be heard at Step 4. Generally speaking, in order for a grievance to qualify to be heard at Step 4, it must fall within the definition of a grievance (Section II.1 of the Grievance Procedure), be processed in a timely fashion (Section 1.5 of the Grievance Procedure), and be filed on the proper forms. Cases found to be unqualified for hearing at Step 4 are dismissed by administrative action, and the parties are notified in writing of the dismissal. Review of such dismissal may be obtained by the grievant, first by a written request to the Director of the Hearings Division, and if satisfaction is not obtained, to the State Personnel Director. If the grievance qualifies to be heard at Step 4, the Scheduling Officer, in consultation with the Director, assigns the case to a Hear­ ing Officer, schedules the time and location of the hearing, and noti­ fies the parties of the hearing. Finally, the Scheduling Officer, in consultation with the Director, determines if the grievance should be scheduled for a regular or an expedited hearing. The Hearings Division is headed by a Director, employs four full­ time grievance Hearing Officers, and maintains a roster of nine ad hoc Hearing Officers to decide Step 4 grievances. The decision to assign a grievance to a full-time Hearing Officer or an ad hoc Hearing Officer is made by the Scheduling Officer in consultation with the Director of the Hearings Division. Ordinarily, a very difficult or controversial case may be assigned to an ad hoc Hearing Officer because of his special expertise or experience with the issues involved. The Hearings Division also employs four Technical Hearings Officers to decide appeals of Civil 57 Service Bureau actions typically involving classification or testing matters. 13 Appeals to outside arbitration are administered by the State Arbi­ tration Officer, who also serves in the capacity of Commission Appeals Officer. The Arbitration Officer reports directly to the Commission and functions independently of the Hearings Division. The Arbitration Officer first investigates grievances appealed to arbitration to deter­ mine if they qualify for arbitration. Then he schedules and conducts a pre-arbitration conference to attempt mediation and to obtain stipu­ lations on facts and issues to be submitted to the arbitrator. After the pre-arbitration conference, he issues a report describing what was accomplished at the conference, and certifying whether the case quali­ fies for arbitration. However, the Arbitration Officer’s report is not binding on the parties; they may process a case to arbitration whether or not he advises that it should be taken to arbitration. The Arbitra­ tion Officer's involvement in the case is completed once he Issues his report. Established procedures are available to the parties for use in selecting an arbitrator through the American Arbitration Association or other arbitration referral services. Appeals to the Commission are administered by the Commission Appeals Officer. There are two types of appeal to the Commission, distinguished by whether the appellant has an automatic right of appeal or may appeal only upon leave granted by the Commission. All discharge grievances lost by the grievant at Step 4 of the procedure are guaranteed the right ^Refer to Grievance Procedure, Section IV, In Appendix C for a detailed description of appeals involving technical matters. 58 of appeal to the Commission. All other grievances may be appealed only when granted leave to appeal by the Commission. Usually, In order for leave to appeal to be granted, the appeal must allege either a violation of the state constitution, a violation of law, a violation of civil service rules or regulations, or an abuse of discretion by the Hearing Officer or arbitrator. The Commission members make all decisions om appeals on the basis of their own reading of case records, briefs, and transcripts and on the basis of analysis provided by Commission Appeals Office staff. The Commission members meet on a monthly basis to decide pending appeals, and to conduct other Commission business. Representation of employees is permitted at all five steps of the procedure. ee. The representative at the first step must be a fellow employ­ Representation at all subsequent steps may be provided by any agent or employee organization selected by the employee. Though collective bargaining is not authorized for Michigan state employees, seven employ­ ee organizations historically have been recognized by the state for pur­ poses of consultation on wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, and each of the seven is active in representing employees under the grievance procedure. These organizations are the Michigan State Em­ ployees Association (MSEA), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), 31-M (affiliated with the Service Employees International Union), the Michigan State Troopers Association, the Corrections Organization, the Highway Engineers, and the Welfare Employees Union. About 80 percent of all grievances decided by Hearing Officers are represented by one of these organizations. The remaining 20 percent of the grievances decided by Hearing Officers are represented by a private attorney, the individual grievant, or a fellow employee 59 of the grievant. About 51 percent of all state civil service employees hold membership in, and authorize dues check off in support of one of these seven organizations. And at least one of the seven organizations is active in each of the 20 state departments. 14 •^Refer to Appendix F, Table 50 for further details. CHAPTER SIX THE CIVIL SERVICE HEARING OFFICER The State of Michigan employs eight full-time Hearing Officers and nine ad hoc Hearing Officers. Four of the full-time Hearing Officers decide fourth step grievance cases, and the remaining four decide tech­ nical appeals. The nine ad hoc Hearing Officers decide fourth step grievance cases. In all, this group of Hearing Officers decided 438 regular grievance cases, and 185 technical appeals during the 12-month period from October 1, 1977, through September 30, 1978. The Hearing Officers are employed in the Hearings Division, which is a separate administrative unit within the Michigan Department of Civil Service. The Hearings Division was originally established in 1974 in order to separate the adjudication functions from the management and employer advocacy functions of the department of Civil Service. Since 1974, the Hearings Division has been housed in a separate office building, and thus has been geographically removed from all other Department of Civil Service units. All but a very small percentage (three percent) of the fourth step grievances, and all technical appeals, are decided by Civil Service Hearing Officers. Very few Hearing Officer decisions are overturned by the Civil Service Commission. Under the Michigan system, the Hearing Officer functions much like a private arbitrator used in grievance 60 61 procedures under collective bargaining agreements. However, unlike the practice in arbitration under collective bargaining, the parties under the Michigan procedure do not have the right to participate in the selection of the Hearing Officers that adjudicate their disputes. Rather, the Michigan Department of Civil Service selects Hearing Offi­ cers, and establishes the policies and standards under which the adju­ dication process is performed. This study surveyed Civil Service Hearing Officers and ad hoc Hearing Officers with respect to their background, education, training, and other qualifications. groups of Hearing Officers. A questionnaire was administered to both Official job descriptions and specifica­ tions for Civil Service Hearing Officers were examined. Finally, inter­ views with the Director of the Hearings Division and other Department of Civil Service personnel were held. The information reported below was obtained through the questionnaire survey, the interviews, and the job descriptions and specifications. Knowledge, Abilities, and Responsibilities Civil Service Hearing Officers are employed in a number of different job classifications, depending largely on their qualifications and ten­ ure.*- However, the types of knowledge, ability and responsibility required of Hearing Officers, though graded by experience on the job, fall in the same general categories. The primary responsibilities of Hearing Officers are: **The present group of Hearing Officers includes those classified as Personnel Administrator 14 and 15, Employee Relations Administrator 14 and 16, Labor Hearing Officer 15, and Personnel Specialist 11. This information was collected from official job descriptions on file with the Classification Bureau of the Department of Civil Service. 62 1. to investigate and mediate grievances; 2. to arrange stipulations on facts and issues; 3. to judge the relevancy and weight of evidence offered; 4. to make findings of fact and conclusions of law; and, 5 . to prepare and issue written grievance and appeal decisions. The types of knowledge and ability required of Hearing Officers include: 1. Knowledge of principles and practices of personnel administra­ tion. 2. Elementary knowledge of state government functions and organi­ zations. 3. Knowledge of merit system principles. 4. Knowledge of grievance, mediation, and arbitration procedures. 5. Knowledge of rules of evidence. 6. General knowledge of Michigan constitutional provision for Civil Service, and all state and federal protective labor legislation. 7. Good command of written and spoken English. 8. Ability to interpret and apply laws, rules, and regulations relative to the state merit system. 9. Ability to conduct quasi-judicial hearings. 10. Ability to evaluate oral and written evidence and draw logical conclusions. 11. Ability to prepare accurate, logical and concise written deci­ sions. ^This information was collected from official job specifications on file with the Classification Bureau. 63 On the Job Training Newly appointed full-time Hearing Officers are provided job train­ ing through a number of methods. Those with limited previous experience with state government labor relations practices are assigned to work as a Scheduling Officer for several weeks or months in order to gain general familiarity with the Michigan system. During this period, the indi­ vidual trainee also observes hearings conducted by several different experienced Hearing Officers, involving a variety of issues, departments, and employee organizations. Practice decisions are written, critically evaluated by an experienced Hearing Officer, and rewritten by the new Hearing Officer. Finally, selected cases, Civil Service rules, appoint­ ing authority letters, information bulletins, employee relations policies and departmental personnel rules are made available to the new Hearing Officer for study. The new Hearing Officer is, at first, assigned relatively simple cases to decide, and then is assigned more difficult cases as proficiency is demonstrated. Thus, the new Hearing Officer undergoes what is essentially a period of apprenticeship training. In contrast, ad hoc Hearing Officers must have demonstrated the ability to hear and decide cases before they are employed. Typically, the ad hoc Hearing Officer is an individual employed full-time as a university professor or a private lawyer, and possesses some experience in labor arbitration. Compensation and Qualifications The average annual salary of full-time Hearing Officers as of August, 1978, was approximately $24,700, with the lowest paid incumbent receiving $17,000 per year and the highest paid receiving an annual 64 salary of $30,000. The ad hoc Hearing Officer is paid either $150 or $200 per day of hearing and writing time, depending on individual quali­ fications. Ad hoc Hearing Officers were paid an average of $621 per decision issued in fiscal year 1978. The average age of full-time Hearing Officers is 45 years, ranging from a minimum of 27 years to a maximum of 66 years. The average age of currently active ad hoc Hearing Officers is 54 years, ranging from 34 to 72 years of age. Two of the eight full-time Hearing Officers possess a law degree, one a Masters degree in Labor and Industrial Relations, and one is a candidate for a Masters degree in Labor and Industrial Relations. The other four possess Bachelor degrees in economics, personnel administra­ tion, business administration, and political science. The nine ad hoc Hearing Officers include six with a law degree and three with a Doctorate in labor relations, labor economics, or political science. Five of the ad hoc Hearing Officers are practicing attorneys, and four are university professors with a specialization in labor relations. Four of the full-time Hearing Officers possessed substantial amounts of management experience in labor relations or personnel administration prior to their employment as Hearing Officers. Two possessed several years of experience as full-time staff representatives for employee organizations. The other two lacked labor relations or personnel admin­ istration experience, but were among those with the greatest amount of formal education. Though one full-time Hearing Officer possessed prior experience with the arbitration of accident claims, none had served as a labor 65 arbitrator prior to being a Hearing Officer. Six of the nine ad hoc Hearing Officers possessed extensive experience in labor arbitration prior to being employed as a Hearing Officer. The other three had arbi­ trated only one or two cases apart from their experiences as Civil Service Hearing Officers. Conflict of Interest The Hearings Division uses the "Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules" of the American Arbitration Association to provide Hearing Officers with guidelines concerning proper adjudication procedures and hearing conduct. These rules provide standards on how arbitrators or other "third party neutrals" should conduct hearings, issue decisions, and conduct their relations with the parties to grievances. These rules are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as rigid requirements. Sections 11, 17, and 45 of the Voluntary Labor Arbitra­ tion Rules provide guidance that pertains to the Hearing Officer's or arbitrator's impartiality, and his duty to disclose circumstances that may affect his impartiality: 11. Qualifications of Arbitrator— No person shall serve as a neutral Arbitrator in any arbitration in which he has any financial or personal interest in the result of the arbi­ tration, unless the parties, in writing, waive such dis­ qualification. 17. Disclosure by Arbitrator of Disqualification— Prior to accepting his appointment, the prospective neutral Arbi­ trator shall disclose any circumstances likely to dis­ qualify him as an impartial Arbitrator. Upon receipt of such information, the AAA shall Immediately disclose it to the parties. If either party declines to waive the presumptive disqualification, the vacancy thus created shall be filled in accordance with the applicable provi­ sions of these rules. 66 45. Communications with Arbitrator— There shall be no commun­ ication between the parties and a neutral Arbitrator other than at oral hearings. Any other oral or written communi­ cations from the parties to the Arbitrator shall be directed to the AAA fcr transmittal to the Arbitrator.-* An Important question for neutral adjudicators is their ability to judge when they may be involved in a conflict of interest which might affect their decisions. The ability of an adjudicator to maintain his acceptability as an impartial decision maker may often depend on his ability to discriminate between situations which do and do not constitute a conflict of interest. Moreover, it is of particular impor­ tance for Michigan's Hearing Officers to be cognizant of and thus able to avoid potential conflict of Interest situations; since they are selected unilaterally by the state rather than jointly by the parties, their impartiality may be more in question than jointly selected adju­ dicators. A study published in 1971 attempted to determine the views of professional arbitrators on what circumstances they should and should not disclose to the parties in order to be in compliance with their duty of disclosure in situations that might reasonably raise any doubt as to their impartiality.^ A sample of professional arbitrators, drawn from the membership of the National Academy of Arbitrators, was asked to identify among a set of 30 factual situations the types of circumstances that should be disclosed. The factual situations were based on personal experiences reported in interviews by a number of practicing arbitrators. ^American Arbitration Association, Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules (New York, N. Y.: American Arbitration Association, 1970). ^Sherman, Herbert L., Jr., "Arbitrators' Duty to Disclosure— A Sequel," Arbitration and the Public Interest, Proceedings of the TwentyFourth Annual Meeting. National Academy of Arbitrators (Washington, D. C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1971), pp. 203-233. 67 The 30 factual situations Included a wide range of circumstances In business and social settings, Including both superficial and very close relationships between arbitrators and the parties to grievances. the types of situations included were: Among pre-existing consulting rela­ tionships between the arbitrator and either party to a grievance being decided by the arbitrator; lectures, conferences, or university classes given (or attended) by the arbitrator and attended by either of the parties; stock ownership or other financial interest held by the arbi­ trator in a company that is party to a grievance; social and civic contacts between the arbitrator and either of the parties; prior con­ tacts in arbitration; and potentially compromising statements (e.g., "I don't mind if I lose this one.") made by either of the parties to the arbitrator. The respondents indicated whether they thought the situation should be disclosed by indicating "yes," "no," or "it depends." The results indicated a high level of agreement on what should and should not be disclosed. From about 60 to 80 percent of the arbi­ trators in the sample were able to agree that disclosure either was or was not required in 24 of the 30 situations. In order to determine the extent to which Michigan's full-time and ad hoc Hearing Officers agreed with professional arbitrators regard­ ing their duty to disclose, a questionnaire which is very similar to the one completed by the arbitrators in the 1971 study was administered to all full-time and ad hoc Hearing Officers. Twenty-one of the 30 situations used in the 1971 study are relevant to the civil service setting. Civil Service Hearing Officers were asked to indicate their 68 perceptions on their "duty to disclose" to the Director of the Hearings Division in these 21 situations, and in nine additional situations devised for use in this study. The results of the survey indicate that a majority (55 to 85 per­ cent) of full-time and ad hoc Hearing Officers and professional arbit­ rators are in agreement on whether there is or is not a duty to disclose in 12 of the 21 factual situations that were used in both studies. Responses to the 18 factual situations in which agreement was not attain­ ed indicate that full-time Hearing Officers are at least as cognizant of the existence of a possible conflict of interest as are either ad hoc Hearing Officers or professional arbitrators.^ These results indicate that the views of Michigan's full-time and ad hoc Hearing Officers are at least comparable to the views of private arbitrators concerning what situations may constitute a potential conflict of interest. ^The questionnaire responses of full-time and ad hoc Hearing Offi­ cers are shown in Appendix D. CHAPTER SEVEN GRIEVANCE AND TECHNICAL APPEAL DECISIONS Michigan's present system of adjudication has been in use since May, 1972. However, no data concerning its operation and use, other than the annual volume of grievances sustained and denied, have been tabulated. In order to obtain more complete data concerning the use of the adjudication process, the author examined the Hearing Of­ ficer and arbitrator decisions issued during the five year period from January 1, 1973, through December 31, 1977. The author analyzed the decisions in terms of department involved, type of employee repre­ sentation used, employee classification level, grievance issues, decision outcomes and timeliness, use of expedited hearings,use of ad hoc Hearing Officers, and appeals to the Civil Service Commission. The results of this analysis are presented in this chapter. These results serve the purpose of describing objectively, in terms of the factors analyzed, the nature of the adjudication process and how it has been used. Regular grievance Hearings Officers decided a total of 1,325 cases during calendar years 1973 through 1977. Technical Hearings Officers, after becoming a part of the Hearings Division in 1975, decided 562 cases through 1977. Arbitrators decided 35 grievances during the 1973 69 70 through 1977 period. Altogether, Hearings Division personnel and arbi­ trators decided a total of 1,922 cases from 1973 through 1977. Appeals to the Civil Service Commission were taken on 422 (22 percent) of the 1,922 cases, which included 355 brought on Step 4 grievance decisions, 60 on technical appeal decisions, and seven on arbitration decisions. Grievances Dismissed Without a Hearing Decisions on grievances by Hearing Officers increased from 168 in 1973 to 371 in 1977. These decisions do not include the grievances that are appealed to the Hearings Division and then dismissed without a hear­ ing before a Hearing Officer. In any one year, such cases comprise from 50 to 60 percent of the total Step 4 case load.^ These grievances are dismissed because they contain one or more procedural or substantive deficiencies. The most common deficiencies identified in a sample of 411 dismissed cases in 1978, were: — The grievance failed to comply with the definition of a grievance (20.4 percent of the sample) — The grievance was untimely or otherwise failed to comply with the procedure at Step 1, 2 or 3 (15.4 percent of the sample) — The action grieved was an employer right specified in Section 4.1 of the Employee Relations Policy (11.6 per­ cent of the sample) — The grievance should have been processed as a classifi­ cation redetermination case (10.9 percent of the sample). •^Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission for the years 1973 through 1977. ^Refer to Appendix E, Table 23, for more detail. 71 Decisions by Department Involved The Department of Mental Health was Involved In 44 percent of all decisions decided by Hearing Officers during the 1973-1977 period, and three-fourths of all cases originated in Mental Health, Social Services and Corrections. The eight departments accounting for more than 90 percent of all cases are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Distribution of Decisions by Department, 1973-1977 Percent Cumulative Percent Mental Health 43.7 43.7 Social Services 14.6 58.3 Corrections 14.4 72.7 Labor 6.1 78.8 State Police 4.8 83.6 State Highways 3.9 87.5 Management and Budget 2.7 90.2 Commerce 2.1 92.3 Department Source: Appendix E, Table 24. Departments of Corrections and Mental Health were also at the top in number of cases per 1000 employees. of cases decided and rate per 3 The 1977 figures for total number 1000 employees are shown in Table 2 for all departments. ^Refer to Appendix E, Table 24. 72 Table 2: Distribution of Decisions and Decision Rates by Department, 1977 Department Rate* Number of Cases Corrections 13.1 50 Mental Health 11.5 163 Civil Rights 10.8 3 Commerce 7.2 12 State Police 7.1 20 Civil Service 6.0 2 Labor 5.1 28 Licensing and Regulation 4.4 1 Social Services 3.9 56 Management and Budget 3.9 7 Military Affairs 3.0 1 Public Health 2.8 5 State 2.7 6 State Highways 2.3 10 Education 1.3 3 Agriculture 1.3 1 Natural Resources .9 3 Attorney General 0 0 Auditor General 0 0 Treasury 0 0 *rate per 1000 employees Source: Appendix E, Table 24. Rates based on employment figures reported in Appendix F, Table 49. 73 Decisions by Type of Representation Approximately 67 percent of all fourth step cases involved employ­ ees represented by either MSEA or AFSCME. However, AFSCME represented proportionately more cases on the basis of membership. Though MSEA accounted for about two-thirds of all employee members, it represented grievants in only about 25 percent of all cases decided during 1973 through 1977. In contrast, AFSCME accounted for about one-fifth of total employee organization membership and represented grievants in about 40 percent of all Step 4 cases.^ The number of cases represented per 1000 members increased over the five year study period for each employee organization, except the State Troopers and the Highway Engineers. AFSCME experienced the greatest gain increasing from 10.8 in 1973, to 25.8 Step 4 decisions per 1000 members in 1977.^ Organization representation utilized by grievants in 1977 is summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Distribution of Decisions by Representation Type, 1977 Representation Rate* Number of 4.4 93 25.8 149 31-M 6.9 10 Troopers 0.7 1 13.4 13 MSEA AFSCME Corrections Organization ^Appendix E, Table 25. “'ibid. 74 Table 3 continued Representation Rate* Number of Cases Highway Engineers 0 0 Welfare Employees 13.1 14 *rate per 1000 members Other Employee Organizations 5 Private Attorney 26 Self-Representation 18 Fellow Employee 23 No Appearance Recorded 14 Source: Appendix E, Table 25. Rates based on employment figures ____________ reported in Appendix F, Table 50.__________________________ Employees represented by fellow employees, private attorneys, or by themselves accounted for about 20 percent of all Step 4 grievances during 1973 through 1977. £ Decisions by Classification Level0 The employees in classification levels three through seven were involved in about 80 percent of all Step 4 decisions issued during the five year period under study.^ Employees at these levels included only 50 to 60 percent of all state employees. Employees at level 15 and above were involved in slightly over one percent of the decisions, ^Typical occupations and approximate salary ranges for the 21 classification levels are listed in Appendix G, Table 52. ^Appendix E, Table 26. 75 with those at level 18 and above receiving no decisions. Employees at levels one and two were involved in only about three percent of all decisions. Substantial increases in the numbers of decisions issued per 1000 employees were experienced at levels three, four, six, and eight, while rates of involvement in fourth step cases increased very little or remained about the same among employees at other levels. Most notable were the increases in Step 4 activity among employees at levels three and six, from 3.0 in 1973 to 10.0 in 1977, and from 5.2 in 1973 to 17.2 decisions in 1977 per 1000 employees, respectively.® The distribution of Step 4 decisions by classification level is summar­ ized in Table 4 for 1977. Table 4: Distribution of Step 4 Decisions by Employee Classification Level, 1977 Classification Level Rate* Number of Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .07 1.1 10.0 6.4 3.0 17.2 4.7 8.4 4.7 8.0 5.5 1.9 4.1 4.6 1.8 0 9.4 0 2 5 64 67 23 59 30 29 24 23 18 4 6 3 1 0 2 0 ®Appendix E, Table 26. 76 Table 4 continued Classification Level Rate* Number of Cases 0 0 0 19 20 21 0 0 0 *Rate per 1000 employees Source: Appendix E, Table 26. Rates based on employment figures _________ reported in Appendix F. Table 51.________________________ Decisions by Action Grieved Discharge and other forms of discipline accounted for 32 percent of all Step 4 decisions in 1973 through 1977. Next in order of impor­ tance came grievances involving compensation (15 percent), assignment (14 percent), appointment (13 percent), and leave (11 percent). The proportion of cases involving discharge grew steadily over the five year period, increasing from 13 percent in 1973 to 19 percent of all cases in 1977. Other types of discipline cases increased from 12 percent in 1973 to 19.5 percent in 1976, and then declined to 14.6 percent in 1977.^ The distribution of decisions by action grieved is summarized in Table 5, for 1977. ^Appendix E, Table 27. 77 Table 5: Distribution of Decisions by Action Grieved, 1977 Action Grieved f Discharge 70 18.9 Appointment 57 15.4 All other Discipline 54 14.6 Compensation 53 14.3 Assignment 44 11.9 Leave 14 11.9 Order Regulations 16 4.3 Lay Off 12 3.2 Termination 12 3.2 Evaluation 9 2.4 TOTAL 371 100.0 1 Source: Appendix E, Table 27. Definitions of types of employer actions _________ are contained in Appendix H.____________________________________ Step 4 Decisions Classified in Terms of Outcome^ The percentage of Step 4 decisions won by departments increased from 47.6 percent in 1973 to 70 percent in 1976, and then declined to 62 percent in 1977. Departments won 61.4 percent of all decisions over the five year period. decisions by outcome. ^Appendix E, Table 28. Table 6 summarizes the distribution of 78 Table 6: Distribution of Decisions by Outcome, 1977 Decision Outcome f Sustained 77 20.8 5 1.3 33 8.9 230 62.0 9 2.4 15 4.0 2 0.5 Partly Sustained Modified Denied Remanded Settled Withdrawn Source: 1 Appendix E, Table 28._________________________________________ Grievants won 19.2 percent of all decisions over the five year period. In addition, outcomes partially favorable to grievants were reached in 15 percent of the decisions, i.e., those that were partly sustained, modified, or settled. These outcomes favorable to grievants were reached in 34.2 percent of all decisions. The remaining five percent of the cases were withdrawn or remanded. Making meaningful comparisons between grievance outcomes in State Civil Service and other employment sectors is difficult because data pertaining to grievance outcomes in other sectors is very limited. However, the available data indicate that the grievance outcomes under the Michigan procedure are similar to those attained in other sectors of employment. Various studies of arbitration awards found that 79 employers won anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the cases, depending on the time frame and the sample of decisions used. 11 In addition, a survey of 1135 arbitration awards in the Federal Civil Service for the period 1970 through 1976 found that the employer won about 50 percent of the cases. 12 Timeliness of Step 4 Grievance Hearings and Decisions Timeliness was examined in terms of the mean number of days that elapsed between the date of appeal and the date of the hearing, and between the date of the hearing and the date of the decision. Between 1973 and 1977, mean number of days from appeal to hearing decreased moderately from 66 to 61 days. These averages represent wide differences among cases, ranging from as few as two to as many as 376 days for individual cases. The mean number of days from the date of the hearing to the date of the decision increased from 35 for the 1973-74 period to about 55 or 60 for the 1975-77 period. The mean number of days that elapsed between the date of appeal and the date of decision increased from about 100 to about 115 days over the five year period. The figures also represent wide variations among cases ranging from a low of five days to a high of 544 da y s . ^ ^Dunbar, Florence, Management Participation in the Arbitration Process, 1969. Najita, J. M., Labor Arbitration Awards in Hawaii, 1944-1962, 1967, p. 2. Ross, A. M., "Distressed Grievance Procedures and Their Rehabilitation," Labor Arbitration and Industrial Change. 1963, p. 110. Small, J., Factors that May Influence the Success Rate of Management and Unions in Arbitration Cases. 1974, p. 14. •^Grievance Arbitration in the Federal Service, 1977, p. 36. ■^Appendix E, Tables 29 and 30. 80 Hearing Officer Decisions Appealed to the Commission Twenty-seven percent of all Hearing Officer decisions issued during 1973-77 were appealed to the Commission. In 1975, 77 percent of Commis­ sion appeals were initiated by grievants and the remainder were appealed by departments. During 1977, grievants appealed about one-third of all decisions they lost and departments appealed about one-fourth of all decisions that grievants w o n . ^ Any discharge grievance lost by the grievant at Step 4 may be auto­ matically appealed to the Civil Service Commission. All other Step 4 decisions may be appealed to the Commission only when granted leave to appeal by the Commission. During the 1973-77 period, leave to appeal was requested in 245 cases and 110 cases were appealed by right. The Commission denied leave to appeal in 206 (84 percent) of the 245 cases for which leave to appeal was requested. Among the 39 (16 percent) cases in which leave was granted, there were six cases in which the Commission denied the grievance, 13 in which the grievance was sustained, and 20 in which the case was remanded. 15 The Commission denied 76 (69 percent) and upheld 23 (21 percent) of the 100 grievances appealed by right over the five years studied. The proportion of these cases denied increased sharply from a low of 58.8 percent in 1975 to a high of 92.3 percent in 1977.^® ing 10 percent includes cases remanded or settled. ■^Appendix E, Tables 31 and 32. ^Appendix E, Table 33. ^Appendix E, Table 34. The remain­ 81 Expedited versus Regular Hearings The use of expedited hearings was undertaken by the Hearings Divi­ sion in 1975 in order to allow more cases to be heard during a given period of time, and to reduce time delays from appeal to hearing and from hearing to decision. Though the record does not permit a conclusive determination of this question, it is probable that the use of expedited hearings has enabled the Hearings Division to conduct an increasing num­ ber of hearings each year. From 1975 to 1977, the number of hearings conducted per year increased from 241 to 371, and the percentage of hearings that were expedited increased from 23.2 percent to 43.1 percent. Also, an increase in the number of Hearing Officers from four to eight during the 1975 to 1977 period contributed to the increase in the number of decisions. On the other hand, there is no indication that expedited hearings have enabled the Hearings Division to reduce the number of days elapsed from appeal to hearing, and from hearing to decision. Over the three year period, 1975-77, mean days from appeal to hearing ranged from 67.9 to 69.6 for expedited cases, and from 56.6 to 66.4 for regular cases. During the same period, the mean days from hearing to decision ranged from 54.3 to 68.7 for expedited cases, and from 47.8 to 52.2 for regular cases.^ The inability of the Hearings Division to reduce time delays may be explained by the fact that the increase in Hearings Divi­ sion staff has been less than proportionate to the Increase in case load. ^Information obtained from Hearings Division Case Files. 82 There was no significant difference between expedited and regular cases in the proportion of grievances sustained or denied. However, cases processed through an expedited hearing were more likely to be remanded to Step 3, and cases handled in a regular hearing were more likely to be modified.'*'® The most notable private sector experience with expedited grievance processing is that of the steel industry. The expedited system in the steel industry provides for brief grievance decisions issued within 48 hours, little, if any use of briefs, transcripts, and formal evidentiary rules, presentation of cases by local personnel rather than by lawyers, the use of joint committees at the local level to look at the grievance docket periodically to determine if more grievances should be referred to the expedited process, and the use of special panels of arbitrators to provide the personnel needed to handle the case load. The parties in the steel industry report that their system is now working to reduce time delays, though it was not effective during the early years of its operation. 19 Among the notable differences between the steel industry and Michi­ gan Civil Service approaches to expedited grievance processing is the use of special panels of arbitrators and the time limit on issuance of decisions under the steel industry system. ^Appendix E, Table 35. ^Daily Labor Report, October 17, 1978, p. C-l. 83 Ad Hoc versus Regular Hearing Officer Decisions Ad hoc Hearing Officers decided 247 (18.6 percent) of the cases decided from 1973 through 1977. About 70 percent of ad hoc Hearing Officer decisions were issued in 1973 and 1974. During the 1975-1977 period, ad hoc Hearing Officers decided only five to 10 percent of all decisions issued in each year. 20 Ad hoc and regular Hearing Officer decisions may be compared by examining the discharge grievances decided by each group. The Issues involved in discharge grievances do not differ very much from one em­ ployment setting to another, while the issues involved in other types of grievances may differ considerably between civil service and private employment settings. Discharge was the subject of 218 grievances heard at Step 4 during 1973 through 1977. Ad hoc Hearing Officers decided 64 and regular Hearing Officers decided 154 of the total.^ The record of decisions indicates that, while each type of Hearing Officer sustained the grievant in about 17 percent of the cases decided, regular Hearing Officers were more likely than ad hoc Hearing Officers to deny a discharge grievance (60 percent versus 45 percent) while ad hoc Hearing Officers were much more likely to modify or partly sus­ tain (e.g., reinstatement without back pay) or to remand a discharge grievance to Step 3. Ad hoc Hearing Officers partly sustained or modi­ fied the grievance in 30 percent and remanded the grievance in five percent of their decisions, while regular Hearing Officers took such action in 20 percent and 0.6 percent of their decisions, respectively. ^Appendix E, Table 36. ^Appendix E, Table 37. 84 Since there is no reason to believe that the discharge grievances re­ ferred to ad hoc Hearing Officers differ significantly from those assigned to regular Hearing Officers, these differences suggest that ad hoc Hearing Officers are more inclined to consider such options as modifying the penalty and remanding grievances than are regular Hearing Officers. About 50 percent of ad hoc and about 40 percent of regular Hearing Officer decisions were appealed to the Commission. 22 Concerning dis­ charge cases appealed by right (i.e., discharge cases lost by the grievant at Step 4), decisions by ad hoc Hearing Officers were much more likely to be appealed to the Commission. The reverse is true for dis­ charge cases appealed by leave (i.e., discharge decisions won by the grievant at Step 4 and appealed by the department): regular Hearing Officer decisions were about twice as likely as ad hoc Hearing Officer decisions to be appealed to the Commission. 23 Ad hoc and regular Hearing Officer decisions were treated much the same by the Commission, each being upheld by the Commission in a vast n/ majority of the cases. Decisions by Arbitrators Approximately 90 percent of all grievances appealed to outside arbitration during the period 1973-77 were withdrawn or settled before hearing or a decision by arbitrators. ^Appendix E, Table 38. ^Appendix E, Tables 37 and 38. 24Ibid. Of the 35 decisions issued by 85 arbitrators during 1973 through 1977, 70 percent involved either dis­ cipline (11 cases, excluding discharge), assignment (eight cases), or compensation (seven cases). over several issues. The remaining nine cases were distributed Discharge cases were not appealable to arbitration during 1973 through 1977.2^ Only a few departments and employee organizations were involved in cases decided by arbitrators. Mental Health and Social Services were party to 17 and 15 arbitration decisions, respectively. AFSCME and the Welfare Employees Union represented grievants in 19 and 15 arbitration cases, respectively, while 31-M represented one case in arbitration.26 Employees from a broad range of classification levels were party to arbitration decisions, including nearly every level from three to 11. However, about 57 percent of all arbitration decisions involved employees in classification levels five, six, and seven. 27 Arbitration cases took much longer to bring to a hearing and to decide than did Civil Service Step 4 Hearing Officer decisions. On the average, arbitration hearings were held 164 days after the date of appeal, and were decided 70 days after the date of the hearing.2® The greater delay between the date of the appeal and the date of the hearing may in part be explained by the fact that the typical private arbitrator 2^Appendix E, Table 39. 26Appendix E, Tables 40 and 41. 2^Appendix E, Table 42. 26Appendix E, Table 43. 86 is less flexible than the Hearing Officer in terms of scheduling hear­ ing dates because of his full-time employment outside state government. The greater delay between the hearing and the decision may be explained by the fact that most grievances decided by arbitrators involve the use of briefs which require additional time for preparation after the hearing. Very few cases decided by Hearing Officers involve the use of briefs. Arbitrators denied the grievance in 51.4 percent of their decisions, and sustained, partly sustained, or modified the penalty in 45.6 percent of the cases. Thus, on the basis of this small sample, it appears that arbitrators are less likely to deny grievances than ad hoc or regular Hearing Officers.^ This may be explained in part by the fact that, since employees or their organizations pay 50 percent of the cost of arbitration decisions, they exercise greater care in selecting and preparing cases for arbitration than they do in cases presented to Hearing Officers for which the State bears the entire cost. Arbitrators’ decisions were appealed to the Commission in seven of the 35 cases (20 percent) decided. Leave to appeal was granted in only two cases, one of which was remanded and, in the other, the grievance was sustained. u Decisions of Technical Hearing Officers Technical Hearing Officers Issued 562 decisions during 1975 through 1977. Of these, 438 (78 percent) involved appeals of classification ^Appendix E, Table 44. -^Appendix E, Table 45. 87 redetermination decisions. Appeals of testing redetermination decisions were involved in 82 (14.6 percent) of the cases, while the few remain­ ing cases Involved either selection or compensation matters. Classifi­ cation matters have accounted for an increasing proportion of all techOl nical cases, increasing from 72 percent in 1975 to 82 percent in 1977. The average number of days elapsed from date of appeal to date of hearing increased slightly, from 91.6 in 1976 to 93.1 in 1977. The average number of days elapsed from the date of hearing to the date of decision declined from 50.8 in 1976 to 44.1 in 1977. Largely because of delays in conducting hearings, Technical Hearing Officer decisions were much less timely than regular or ad hoc Hearing Officer decisions. Technical Hearing Officers denied the appeal (i.e., sustained the decision rendered in the redetermination process) in 65 percent of the cases, and sustained the grievance in whole or in part (i.e., overturn­ ed, partially overturned, or modified the redetermination decision) in 28 percent of the cases.^ Sixty (13.2 percent) of the 456 cases decided by Technical Hearing Officers in 1975 through 1977 were appealed to the Commission. Of these, 55 were denied leave to appeal; in three cases, the Commission reversed the Technical Hearing Officer, while in one case, the appeal was denied, and in one case a settlement was reported.^ ^Appendix E, Table 46. ^Appendix E, Table 47. ^Appendix E, Table 48. 88 Summary A large majority (nearly three-fourths) of all Hearing Officer decisions issued during the 1973-1977 period were concentrated in three departments, Mental Health, Social Services and Corrections, and three employee organizations, AFSCME, MSEA, and the Corrections Organization. Mental Health and Corrections experienced the highest rates of adjudi­ cation activity among all departments, 11.5 and 13.4 decisions per 1000 employees, respectively. The high rates experienced by Corrections and Mental Health may be explained in large part by conditions unique to those departments. Each department employs large numbers of employees in prisons or mental health hospitals. These work settings involve stressful working conditions resulting from contact with the inmate or patient population and numerous restrictive rules concerning employee work performance and behavior. These conditions largely explain the high rates of adjudication activity in these departments. AFSCME and the Corrections Organization, two organizations that have nearly all their memberships in Mental Health or Corrections, have correspondingly high rates of adjudication activity. Hearing Officer decisions were also concentrated within a few employee classification levels. Employees in levels three through seven, many of whom are employed in institut­ ional positions at Mental Health or Corrections, were Involved in 80 percent of all adjudication decisions. Yet, they comprised only 60 percent of the state work force. Departments won about 61 percent of all Hearing Officer decisions over the 1973-1977 period. Outcomes favorable to grievants (i.e., grievance fully sustained, partly sustained, modified, or settled) 89 were reached in about 34 percent of Hearing Officer decisions. Deci­ sions by Technical Hearing Officers, which largely involve employee appeals of decisions made by the classification or selection bureau, were 65 percent against the employee and 29 percent favorable to the employee. By comparison, employees won 46 percent and lost only 51 percent of all arbitration decisions. Because of the greater cost of arbitration to the employee or his organization, grievances appealed to arbitration are likely to have greater merit and to be better pre­ pared than grievances appealed to civil service Hearing Officers. An increasing percentage of all decisions involved discharge, and other forms of disciplinary grievances. Disciplinary grievances account­ ed for the largest percentage (about 33 percent) of all Hearing Officer decisions in 1977. The time elapsed from the date of the appeal to the date of the decision increased by about two weeks for Hearing Officer decisions during the 1973-1977 period. All of the increase in time delay occurred between the date of the hearing and the date of the decision. Though the rise of expedited hearings contributed to the ability of Hearing Officers to hear more cases, it did not increase the timeliness of adjudication decisions. Decisions by outside arbitrators took considerably longer to hear and decide than Hearing Officer decisions because of the extensive use of formal briefs in arbitration cases, which require additional time after the hearing, and because more lead time is required to sche­ dule a hearing date with a private arbitrator than with a Hearing Officer. 90 The Civil Service Commission received appeals on 355 Hearing Of­ ficer decisions during the 1973-1977 period. The Commission overruled Hearing Officers in only 29 (12 percent) of these appeals. The Com­ mission received appeals on seven arbitration decisions and did not overturn the arbitrator's decision in any case. The Commission re­ ceived appeals on 60 decisions by Technical Hearing Officers and overruled Technical Hearing Officers in only three cases. Overall, the Commission overruled the various types of adjudication decisions with little frequency. Finally, a comparison of ad hoc and regular Hearing Officer deci­ sions on discharge grievances shows that ad hoc Hearing Officers remand or modify grievances in a greater percentage of their decisions and regular Hearing Officers deny grievances in a greater percentage of their decisions. CHAPTER EIGHT ADJUDICATION COSTS1 Three types of adjudication agents, i.e., regular Hearing Officers, ad hoc Hearing Officers, and private arbitrators are used in the Michi­ gan system. Each type involves different cost elements and different total costs, and, in addition, various administrative costs are associ­ ated with each type. These costs are a factor in determining the com­ parative acceptability of the process associated with each type of adjudicating agent. Data concerning adjudication costs were collected through inter­ views and a questionnaire survey. Interviews were conducted with members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission Appeals Officer, the Director of the Hearings Division, and personnel officials represent­ ing the departments of Management and Budget, Social Service, Mental Health, and Civil Service. Nineteen department personnel directors, plus the Personnel Director of the MESC, were included in the questionnaire survey. ^ h i s cost survey excludes the cost of technical cases. The seven departments that did not respond to the cost survey were: Agriculture, Civil Rights, Commerce, Natural Resources, State Highways, Military Affairs, and Public Health. All the departments with large volumes of grievances at Step 4 and several of the departments with relatively small numbers of Step 4 grievances, responded to the survey. The questionnaire is contained in Appendix I. 91 92 The cost estimates reported below are based on the information received from the questionnaire and interview surveys. The surveys included data on: 1. the expenses of the Commission Appeals Office, 2. the time commitment required of Commission members to study and decide Commission appeals, 3. the expenses of the Hearing Division, 4. the cost to departments of staff time devoted to preparing and advocating grievances at Civil Service Steps 4 and 5, and in arbitration, 5. the cost to departments of administrative leave used at Civil Service Step 4 and in arbitration, and 6. the cost to departments of arbitration fees, filing fees, and transcripts, and the costs of the state arbitration officer. It is estimated, as summarized in Table 7, that these six factors cost the state a total of about $454,000 during FY 1977-1978. Table 7: A. B. C. Adjudication Costs, Fiscal Year 1978 Costs of Grievances Appealed to the Commission: — Commission Appeals Office Budget for Grievances — Department Advocacy Costs Sub-Total $ 51,000 4,020 $ 55,020 Costs of Grievances Appealed to Hearing Officers: — Hearings Division Budget for Grievances — Department Advocacy Costs — Administrative Leave Costs Sub-Total $317,600 26,280 39,420 $383,300 Costs of Grievances Appealed to Arbitrators: — Arbitration Officer Budget — Arbitration Fees — Department Costs for Advocacy — Administrative Leave Costs — Leave Costs to Pre-arbitration Conferences Sub-Total TOTAL $ 8,500 4,000 450 540 2.380 $ 15,870 $454,190 93 The Cost of Grievances Appealed to the Commission The total cost to operate the Commission Appeals Office during FY 1977-78 was $85,000.^ About 60 percent of this total, or $51,000, is attributable to appeals of Civil Service Step 4 grievance decisions. The remainder is attributable to the functions of the arbitration offi­ cer (10 percent, $8,500) appeals of technical decisions (20 percent, $17,000) and miscellaneous activities (10 percent, $8,500). The $51,000 cost of grievance appeals breaks down to an average of $381 per case for the 134 grievance decisions issued by the Commission during FY 1977-78. The cost to departments to prepare and present Commission appeals totaled $4,020 for the 134 grievance decisions issued in FY 1977-78.^ The time devoted by the Commission members to studying and deciding Commission appeals is a particularly important cost factor. It is im­ portant because Commission members serve on a part-time basis, and do not have unlimited time to devote to Commission business. Thus, the time spent by Commission members on appeals leaves less time for Com­ mission members to spend on other Commission business. The Commission members reported that they spend from two to four days per month on studying and deciding Commission appeals (FY 1977-78). This amounted to about two-thirds of the total time spent by the ^This figure includes the cost of professional and clerical salary, office space, transcripts, printing and reports. ^This is based on the estimate that each appeal involves an average of 0.5 hours of personnel director time at $14.14 per hour, 1 hour of employee relations advocate time at $9.97 per hour, and 1 hour of cler­ ical support at $6.20 per hour. This sums to a total of about $30 per decision. 94 Commission on all its business. No estimate is made of the dollar cost of the Commission's time, since the Commissioners serve without salary. However, the estimated time demand of the appeals case load, relative to the time demand of other Commission business, may raise questions about what is the best use of the Commission's time. The Costs of Grievances Appealed to Hearing Officers The total cost of grievances appealed to Hearing Officers was $383,300. The cost to operate the Hearings Division (exclusive of technical cases) during FY 1977-78 was $317,600."* This amounts to an average cost per decision of $725 for the 438 grievance decisions issued during FY 1977-78. Cases decided by ad hoc Hearing Officers cost the Hearings Division an average of $621 per decision in fees and expenses paid to ad hoc £ Hearing Officers. Regular hearing officer salaries cost the Division an average of $381 per decision during FY 1977-78. The cost of secre­ tarial and court reporter services attributable to grievance cases was an average of $132 per decision during the same period. ■*This figure includes the costs of professional and clerical salary, office space, outside court reporters, travel, supplies, mat­ erials, new equipment, and ad hoc Hearing Officer fees and expenses. ^Ad hoc Hearing Officers are paid either $150 or $200 per day o£ hearing and decision writing time, depending on their experience and qualifications, plus expenses. 95 The costs of departmental staff time devoted to preparing and advocating cases heard at Civil Service Step 4 totaled $26,280 for the 438 grievance cases decided by Hearing Officers in FY 1977-78. 7 The costs of administrative leave used at Step 4 grievance hearings totaled $39,420 for the 439 grievance cases decided during FY 1977-78. This total includes the cost of leave used by the department witnesses and officials other than the principle advocate, grievants' witnesses, fellow employee representatives, and grievants. Q This estimate is based on the following factors: 1. It is estimated that grievants, grievants' witnesses, and fellow employee representatives are paid administrative leave at an hourly rate equal to the state average wage ($6,84 per hour), and that department witnesses and officials other than the principal advocate, receive administrative leave at a rate equal to 1.5 times the state average wage. 2. Responses to the questionnaire survey indicate that an average of four hours of administrative leave is used by grievants, fellow employee representation, grievants' witnesses, and department witnesses for each hearing, which each attends. 3. A survey of 200 1978 Civil Service Step 4 hearings indicate that an average of one grievant, 0.6 grievant witnesses, and/or fellow employee representatives, and 1.1 department witnesses attends each Step 4 hearing. These three cost factors sum to a total average cost of about $90 per decision in administrative leave costs. ^This is based in the estimate that an average case requires the use of 1 hour personnel director time at $14.14 per hour, 4 hours of employee relations advocate time at $9.97 per hour, and 1 hour of cleri­ cal support time at $6.50 per hour. This sums to a totalof about $60 per decision. 96 The Coats of Grievances Appealed to Arbitration The Commission Appeals Officer also performs the job of State Arbi­ tration Officer. About 10 percent of the cost of the Commission Appeals Office, or about $8,500, is attributable to the functions of the State Arbitration Officer.® The principle functions of the State Arbitration Officer are to organize and conduct pre-arbitration conferences, through which he attempts to mediate grievances before the parties file for arbi­ tration with the AAA or other arbitration referral services. During FY 1977-78, pre-arbitration conferences were conducted by the Arbitration Officer at an average cost of $250 per conference. The cost of administrative leave to attend pre-arbitration conferQ ences totaled $2,380 for the 34 conferences conducted during FY 1977-78. The costs of department staff time required for the preparation and advocacy of arbitration cases, is estimated to be about $75 per decision. This sums to a total of $450 for the six arbitration decisions issued in FY 1977-78.10 ®Thls figure includes professional and clerical salary, office space, reports, printing, and transcripts. ^This is based on the estimate that an average of one grievant and one grievant representative each receive an average wage of two hours of leave, paid at a rate equal to the state average wage ($6.84 per hour) for each conference, and that two department representatives receive leave paid at a rate equal to 1.5 times the state average wage for an average of two hours attendance at each conference. This sums to a total cost of $70 per conference. ■^This is based on the estimate that an average of about one hour of personnel director time at $14.14 per hour, five hours of employee rela­ tions advocate time at $9.87 per hour, and two hours of clerical support time at $6.20 per hour, is required for each arbitration and conference. This totals about $75 per decision. 97 Administrative leave costs departments a total of $540 for the six arbitration decisions issued in FY 1977-78.^ Finally, arbitration fees and expenses charged to the departments averaged $672 per decision, or a total of about $4,000 for the six deci­ sions issued in FY 1977-78. This figure represents 50 percent of the total cost of arbitration fees, expenses and transcripts; employees or employee organizations pay the remaining 50 percent. It is noteworthy that the cost of arbitration was the most costly, averaging $672 per decision in fees, expenses and transcript costs paid by the state. Ad hoc Hearing Officers were the second most expensive, averaging $621 per decision in fees and expenses paid by the state. Full-time Hearing Officers were the least expensive, averaging $381 per decision in salary costs. In addition, the cost of secretarial and court reporter services paid by the Hearings Division was $132 per Hearing Officer decision. This amount should be added to the above cited costs of regular and ad hoc Hearing Officer decisions to make them more comparable to the cost of private arbitration (which, as reported, includes transcript and secretarial costs). This adjustment results in a cost of $513 per decision for regular and $753 per decision for ad hoc Hearing Officers. ■^This was based on an estimated cost of $90 per decision, cal­ culated as indicated in Footnote 9, supra. CHAPTER NINE DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION PERCEPTIONS OF THE GRIEVANCE AND APPEAL PROCEDURE A survey of department personnel directors and employee organiza­ tion grievance representatives was conducted to assess their perceptions of the adjudication process. Included in the survey were the principal grievance representatives of the seven employee organizations recognized by the State for the purposes of Meet and Confer, and 20 personnel direc­ tors or their designated representatives. Interviews were conducted with the personnel directors of eight departments and with representa­ tives of three employee organizations in March, 1978, in order to make a preliminary identification of their views concerning the adjudication process. These interview data were used to guide the development of the questionnaire. The initial form of the questionnaire was pretested on the personnel directors of five departments. This pretest resulted in several changes in the organization and content of the questionnaire. The final form of the questionnaire, contained in Appendix J, includ­ ed 50 questions and four types of questions. The most frequently used type of question was a Likert type rating of satisfaction or dissatis­ faction with the various elements of the procedure. Coupled with these Likert type rating items was a question requesting the respondents to 98 99 describe the basis for any dissatisfaction that was indicated in res­ ponses to the H k e r t rating items.'*' A third question type requested the respondents to indicate their preferences for various provisions and practices under the procedure. Finally, an open-ended question re­ quested the respondents to evaluate and compare regular Hearing Officers, ad hoc Hearing Officers, and arbitrators on the basis of several criteria. For the most part, the questions were organized chronologically, in the order that a grievance would be processed through the procedure. Questions one through 15 pertained mostly to the first three steps of the procedure; these aspects of the procedure were primarily of interest to the Michigan Department of Civil Service and are not within the scope of this dissertation. Questions 16 through 27 pertained to redetermina­ tion and technical cases; questions 28 through 35 dealt with the treat­ ment of grievances at Civil Service Step 4; questions 36 through 41 were concerned with appeals to outside arbitration; and questions 44 through 46 pertained to Civil Service Step 5, i.e., appeals to the Civil Service Commission. Question 50 involved an appraisal of Hearing Officers and arbitrators. Questions 47 and 49 were general, open-ended questions, and question 48 was an assessment of the overall performance of the procedure. The prospective respondents, 20 department and seven employee organi­ zation officials in all, were contacted by telephone a few days before the questionnaire was mailed to them during the second week of April, 1978. The purpose of the telephone contact was to explain the question- naire and to request their cooperation in its completion. ■*-The responses to this item are contained in Appendix K. 100 All 20 department officials and six of the seven employee organiza­ tion officials completed and returned the questionnaire. of response was attained for nearly all items. A high level Four department respon­ dents reported that they lacked experience with Step 4 hearing and arbi­ tration, and omitted responses to the questions pertaining to those parts of the procedure. Three of six employee organizations' respondents failed to respond to open-ended question number 49. All the other ques­ tions were completed by all the respondents. Overall, the survey results indicate that a majority of the respon­ dents for both departments and employee organizations hold largely favor­ able perceptions of the procedure, though significant dissatisfaction was found to exist with regard to specific aspects of the process. Access to arbitration and to Steps 4 and 5 of the procedure is lim­ ited by the exclusion of specific types of grievances from those steps. Several questionnaire items (i.e., numbers 29, 30, 40, 41, and 45) re­ quested the respondents to evaluate these exclusions. The responses indicate that a substantial majority (60 to 80 percent) of the depart­ ment respondents are satisfied with all exclusions except for the exclu­ sion of discharge cases from arbitration. A majority of the departments indicated that discharge grievances should be appealable to arbitration. While the survey was in progress, the Department of Civil Service ex­ panded access to arbitration by permitting all discharge cases to be appealed to arbitration. Prior to May, 1978, only non-discharge griev­ ances could be appealed to arbitration. Employee organizations were largely of the view that all exclusions should be eliminated. 101 Evaluations of the several types of hearings provided for under the procedure are presented in Tables 8 , 9, and 10. A substantial majo­ rity of the department respondents (from about 60 to 90 percent) reported that they were satisfied with the conduct of regular grievance hearings, technical hearings, and arbitration hearings, while only about 35 percent to 40 percent of the department representatives were satisfied with redetermination hearings. Employee organization representatives were generally dissatisfied with all types of hearings. Arbitration hearings were rated only marginally higher than the other types of hearings by employee organizations. Tables 11, 12, and 13 contain evaluations of the clarity, consis­ tency, and timeliness of the several types of decisions issued under the procedure (i.e., arbitration decisions, grievance and technical decisions issued by the Hearings Division, and redetermination decisions issued by the Bureaus of Classification and Selection). A majority (55 per­ cent) of the department respondents were satisfied with the clarity and logical consistency of both technical and regular grievance deci­ sions, though a greater percentage (about 80 percent) indicated satis­ faction with grievance decisions than with technical decisions. Employee organizations tended to be widely divided in their views on the clarity and consistency of both technical and regular grievance decisions, without a clear majority indicating satisfaction or dissatis­ faction on either of the two factors rated. Both departments and employee organizations were dissatisfied with the timeliness of all types of deci­ sions. TABLE 8: EVALUATION OF GRIEVANCE AND TECHNICAL HEARINGS Questions 26. 33. Responses NU vs FS N FD VD The conduct of hearings by Technical Hearings Officers: - in terms of the completeness of the facts received by Technical Hearings Officers. D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 4) ( 1) ( 9) ( 1) ( 3) ( 1) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) - in terms of the impartiality of the Technical Hearings Officers. D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) (10) ( 0) ( 4) ( 3) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) - in terms of the completeness of the records of facts established through the hearings. D E ( 1) ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) (15) ( 3) ( 1) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) - in terms of the impartiality of the Civil Service Hearings Officers. D E ( 1) C 0) ( 4) ( 1) (10) ( 0) ( 2) ( 1) ( 3) ( 3) ( 0) ( 1) The conduct of Civil Service step 4 hearings: D = Department E - Employee Organization NU = not understood N = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied VS = very satisfied FD = fairly dissatisfied FS = fairly satisfied VD = very dissatisfied TABLE 9: EVALUATION OF ARBITRATION HEARINGS AND PRE-ARBITRATION CONFERENCES Responses Questions 37. 38. NU VS FS D E ( 4) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 8) ( 2) - in terms of the completeness of the records of facts established through the hearings. D E ( 6) < 1) ( 4) ( 1) - in terms of the impartiality of the arbitrators. D E ( 6) ( 1) ( 4) ( 0) The conduct of pre-arbitration conferences in terms of enhancing a fair and timely resolution of grievances. N FD VD ( 5) ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 6) ( 1) ( 4) ( 1) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 6) ( 2) ( 4) ( 1) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) C 2) The conduct of arbitration hearings; TABLE 10: EVALUATION OP REDETERMINATION HEARINGS Responses Questions NU VS FS N FD VD 18. The redetermination process in the Classification Bureau. D E C 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) C 7) C l) ( 3) ( 1) ( 3) ( 0) ( 6) ( 4) 21. The redetermination process in the Selection Bureau. D E ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 7) ( 1) ( 5) ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) ( 3) ( 4) TABLE 11: EVALUATION OF REGULAR AND TECHNICAL DECISIONS Questions 27. Responses NU vs FS N FD VD The adequacy of Technical Hearings Officers written decisions: - in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 9) ( 0) ( 7) ( 3) ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) - in terms of the logical consistency among the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E C 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 9) ( 2) ( 5) ( 1) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) - in terms of timeliness. D E ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) C 6) ( 2) ( 3) ( 0) ( 5) ( 2) ( 4) ( 2) - in terms of the clearness of the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E ( 1) ( 0) ( 4) ( 1) (12) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) ( 1) - in terms of the logical consistency among the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E ( 1) C o) ( 4) ( 1) (10) ( 2) ( 0) ( 1) ( 3) ( 1) ( 2) ( 1) D E ( 2) C 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 4) ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) ( 7) ( 2) ( 5) ( 1) The adequacy of Civil Service step 4 Hearings Officers written decisions: - in terms of timeliness. TABLE 12: EVALUATION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS Questions Responses NU VS FS N FD VD rhe adequacy of the written decisions of arbitrators: - in terms of the clearness of the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E ( 4) ( 1) ( 4) ( 1) ( 7) ( 1) C 5) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) - in terms of the logical consistency among the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E ( 4) ( 1) ( 3) ( 1) ( 8) ( 1) ( 5) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) - in terms of timeliness. D E ( 4) ( 1) ( 3) ( 0) ( 3) ( 2) ( 7) ( 1) ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) TABLE 13: EVALUATION OF REDETERMINATION DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE SELECTION AND CLASSIFICATION BUREAUS Questions 22. 23. R esp o n ses NU VS FS N FD VD The adequacy of Classification Bureau redetermination decisions: - in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclu­ sions, and supporting reasons. D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 7) ( 2) ( 3) ( 0) ( 5) ( 2) ( 3) ( 2) - in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E C 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 6) ( 2) ( 3) ( 0) ( 6) ( 2) ( 3) ( 2) - in terms of timeliness. D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) ( 4) ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) (12) ( 3) - in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclu­ sions and supporting reasons. D E ( 2) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) ( 9) ( 1) ( 4) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) - in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. D E ( 2) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) ( 9) ( 1) ( 6) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) - in terms of timeliness. D E ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) ( 7) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) ( 6) ( 3) The adequacy of Selection Bureau redetermination decisions: 108 As reported in greater detail In Appendix K (Items 22, 23, 27, and 34), several complaints were registered concerning technical and regular grievance decisions. Some respondents indicated that lack of timeliness was a source of dissatisfaction, while others reported that the decisions tended to be too brief and did not provide enough explanation. Finally, a small minority of both department and employee organization represen­ tatives (three respondents) indicated that the impartiality of Technical Hearing Officers is suspect because several of them were former employees of the Classification or Selection bureaus. With regard to arbitration decisions, department respondents tended to be favorable, while employee organizations were widely divided in their ratings on all three factors. The response of a large proportion (about 50 percent) of the respondents, that they were indifferent or lacked understanding of arbitration decisions may reflect the fact that most departments and employee organizations have had no experience with arbitration. A much higher percentage of both departments and employee organiza­ tions indicated dissatisfaction with redetermination decisions than with the other types of decisions. The greatest percentage of respondents were dissatisfied with the timeliness of redetermination decisions (65 to 80 percent), though sizable percentages were also dissatisfied with performance with respect to clarity and consistency of decisions (45 to 65 percent). Several respondents provided comments that are critical of the quality and timeliness of redetermination decisions. ments are listed under questions 22 and 23 in Appendix K. These com­ 109 The respondents' evaluations of Civil Service Commission decisions at Step 5 of the grievance procedure are presented in Table 14. Nearly 50 percent of all department respondents and a large majority of all employee organization representatives were unable to decide whether the Commission provides an effective check on the decisions it reviews at Step 5. This is largely a reflection of the fact that a substantial proportion (about 50 percent) of the respondents have had little or no experience with Step 5 decisions. Of those that did provide a "yes" or "no" response, an overwhelming majority (from 70 to 100 percent) indicated that the Commission does not provide an effective check on the decisions it reviews. Critical comments returned with the completed questionnaires focused on the brevity of most Commission decisions, and on the Commission's apparent heavy reliance on staff to process and analyze the large volume of cases it reviews. Some respondents reported that they lack any mean­ ingful access to the Commission, unless they are involved in a case that is argued orally before the Commission. Question 50 requested the respondents to indicate their prefer­ ence for regular Hearing Officers, ad hoc Hearing Officers, and outside arbitrators on the basis of several specified criteria. The results indicate that most of the respondents do not have a clear cut preference for any one type of adjudicator, but tend to shift their preference in accordance with the circumstances or the issues of the case involved. Most respondents credited regular full-time Hearing Officers with possessing a greater knowledge of Civil Service policies and regulations than either ad hoc Hearing Officers or arbitrators. Thus, Civil Service 110 TABLE 14: EVALUATION OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DECISIONS Question 46. Responses Yes No Undecided All in all, does the Michigan Civil Service Commission provide an effec­ tive check on: - the clarity and logical consis­ tency of decisions that it denies leave to appeal? D E ( 3) ( 0) ( 8) ( 5) ( 9) ( 1) - the clarity and logical consis­ tency of decisions that it grants leave to appeal of right? D E ( 4) ( 0) ( 8) ( 4) ( 8) ( 2) - the fairness of decisions it denies leave to appeal? D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 9) ( 3) (11). ( 3) - the fairness of decisions that it grants leave to appeal or reviews through appeal of right? D E ( 5) ( 0) ( 5) ( 3) (10) ( 3) D = Department E = Employee Organization Ill Hearing Officers were preferred for cases In which knowledge and sensitivity to Civil Service policies, regulations, and past practice was essential. It was reported by several respondents that the deci­ sions of regular Hearing Officers were more predictable than those of outside arbitrators on such cases. Also, most respondents credited ad hoc Hearing Officers with having a greater knowledge of Civil Service rules and policies than arbitrators, because ad hoc Hearing Officers typically receive more experience under the procedure than do arbitra­ tors, and therefore, have a greater opportunity "to learn the system." Arbitrators are credited with possessing greater experience with, and much greater knowledge of, industrial relations matters in general. This was also thought to be true of most ad hoc Hearing Officers. Several respondents gave arbitrators and ad hoc Hearing Officers credit for writing more comprehensive and well-reasoned decisions than regular Hearing Officers. Some respondents reported the view that regular Hear­ ing Officers are required to process a much larger case load than out­ side arbitrators and that this may in part account for whatever dif­ ferences exist in their written decisions. Arbitrators and ad hoc Hearing Officers were viewed by both depart­ ment and employee organization representatives as possessing greater credibility as impartial decision makers than regular full-time Hearing Officers, because they are not dependent on full-time state employment. Accordingly, the use of an arbitrator or an ad hoc Hearing Officer was preferred in cases such as prohibited discrimination or discharge, in which greater credibility as an impartial decision maker was needed. 112 Question 48 requested the respondent to provide an overall evalua­ tion of the performance of the grievance procedure. The responses indi­ cate that a large majority (85 percent) of the departments are satisfied with the fairness of the treatment given to regular grievances, while a smaller majority (55 percent) is satisfied with the fairness of the treatment of technical decisions. Employee organizations are less positive on this overall rating, with 50 percent being satisfied with the fairness of the treatment given to regular grievances and only one in six being satisfied that technical cases are treated fairly. A majority (55 to 65 percent) of both department and employee or­ ganization respondents were dissatisfied with the overall record of the procedure in providing timely treatment of both technical and regular grievances. The responses to question 48 are presented in Table 15. TABLE 15: EVALUATION OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE Question 48. Responses NU VS FS N FD VD All In all, how satisfied are you with the record of the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals pro­ cedure in providing: - a fair resolution of redetermination appeals? D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) (11) ( 1) ( A) ( 2) ( 4) ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) - a timely resolution of redetermination appeals? D E ( 0) ( 0) C 0) ( 0) ( 5) ( 1) ( 3) ( 2) ( 6) ( 0) ( 6) ( 3) - a fair resolution of grievances? D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) (16) ( 3) ( 2) ( 1) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) - a timely resolution of grievances? D E ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 6) ( 0) ( 3) ( 2) ( 6) ( 2) ( 4) ( 2) D = Department E = Employee Organization CHAPTER TEN EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS Two separate groups of state employees were surveyed in order to obtain an assessment of employee views on various aspects of the griev­ ance procedure (excluding the treatment of technical appeals). One group, designated Group A, was representative of all regular, full-time employees on the state payroll during April, 1978. Group A included 549 employees, or about a one percent sample of all state employees on the payroll. About 80 percent of the employees in this group had never processed a grievance at any step under the existing procedure. Responses of these employees have been tabulated separately from the 20 percent who have had some experience with the grievance procedure. The other survey group, designated Group B, consisted of all state employees who had carried a grievance through a Civil Service Step 4 hearing during the 10 week period from April 1, to June 9, 1978, but had not yet received a Hearing Officer decision in their cases at the time they were surveyed. Group B included 113 Step 4 grievants. Separate questionnaires were developed for each survey group.^ Both groups were asked to assess their understanding of, and their access to the process. Both Groups were asked to report certain background ^"The questionnaires are contained in Appendices L and M. 114 115 information such as prior grievance experience, employee organization affiliation, age, sex, and race. Group A was asked to rate the fairness of Step 4 Hearing Officer decisions. 2 Group B was asked to evaluate the fairness of their treatment under the process, without knowledge of the Hearing Officer decision in their cases. 3 Analysis of the questionnaire returns indicates that those employ­ ees in Group A that responded to the questionnaire were representative of the population of regular, full-time state employees in terms of age, sex, race, classification level, employee organization membership, and department of employment. Likewise, it was found that those employees in Group B that responded to the survey were similar to the employees that carried a grievance to a Step 4 hearing during CY 1977 in terms of employee organization membership, employer action grieved, classifi­ cation level, the percentage of cases won and lost, the percentage of cases heard by an ad hoc Hearing Officer, and the percentage heard in an expedited hearing. Thus, there is some assurance that the respondent samples are representative of the population from which they were drawn. 2 The questionnaire to Group A was mailed out on May 12, 1978, enclos­ ed with postage free, return envelopes. By June 10, 91 Group A employ­ ees had completed and returned the questionnaires. A follow up quest­ ionnaire was mailed out on June 13 to the employees that had thus far failed to return the questionnaire. An additional cover letter was included to encourage cooperation with the study. Sixty additional employees responded to the questionnaire after June 13. In all, 251, or 46 percent of Group A completed and returned the questionnaire in usable form. ^The questionnaire to Group B was mailed at weekly intervals during the 10 week survey period to the employees that had taken a grievance to a Step 4 hearing during the prior week. Follow up questionnaires with additional cover letters were sent out to those that failed to re­ spond to the first mailing within three weeks. In all, 55 Step 4 grievants or 49 percent of Group B completed and returned a questionnaire In usable form. No individual respondent was included in both Group A and Group B. 116 Survey Results The results indicate that a large majority (70 to 80 percent) of Michigan State civil service employees perceive the adjudication pro­ cess to be accessible and understandable. Most survey respondents re­ ported that they have access to written information about the process (70 to 80 percent), to grievance forms (78 to 83 percent), and to use of the procedure (68 to 82 percent). A substantial majority (56 to 96 percent) reported that they have either a very clear or a fairly clear understanding of how to use the process. sented in Tables 16, 17, 18, and 19. These results are pre­ As indicated in Table 19, under­ standing of how to use the procedure increased from 56 percent of those (Group A) with no grievance experience, to 64 percent of those (Group B) currently processing a grievance at Step 4. The results concerning the fairness of Step 4 Hearing Officer deci­ sions are less conclusive. As indicated in Table 20, a large majority (65 percent) of the Group A respondents were undecided about whether Step 4 Hearing Officer decisions are fair and impartial. This high percentage of undecided respondents may be a reflection of the fact that less than 10 percent had received a Step 4 Hearing Officer decision on a grievance. Thus, over 90 percent lacked any personal experience on which to base an evaluation of Hearing Officer impartiality. Employees (Group A) who have had no grievance procedure experience are largely (68 percent) undecided about whether Step 4 Hearing Officers provide fair and impartial grievance decisions. Grievants with past experience at Step 4 (Group A) are much more decided in their views of Hearing Officer fairness; 45 percent reported that Step 4 Hearing Offi­ cers are not fair and impartial, 20 percent reported that Hearing 117 TABLE 16: ACCESS TO GRIEVANCE INFORMATION Question asked: In your view, can employees at your place of employment typically request and receive a copy of the written grievance procedure with­ out unreasonable delay? Yes No Undecided Responses: Group A : Empljyees without grievance experience, (n » 193) 76% 6% 18% Tu.ployees with prior grievance experience. (n = 48) 77% 17% 7% 71% 11% 18% Group B : Current Civil Service step 4 grievants. (n = 55) 118 TABLE 17: ACCESS TO GRIEVANCE FORMS Question asked: In your view, can employees at your place of employment typically request and receive grievance forms without unreasonable delay? Yes No Undecided Responses: Group A : Employees without grievance experience. (n = 191) 80% 4% 4% Employees with prior grievance experience. (n = 48) 83% 13% 4% 78% 4% 18% Group B : Current Civil Service step 4 grievants. (n = 54) 119 TABLE 18: ACCESS TO GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Question asked: In your view, do employees at your place of employment typically have complete access to use the grievance procedure? Yes No Undecided Responses: Group A : Employees without grievance experience. (n = 194) 82% 9% 9% Employees with prior grievance experience. (n = 48) 78% 20% 2% Group B : Current Civil Service step 4 grievants. (n = 54) 68% 17% 15% TABLE 19: UNDERSTANDING OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Question asked: All in all, how clear or unclear is your understanding of how to use the grievance procedure? Clear Fairly Clear Neither Fairly Unclear Very Unclear Responses: Group A: Employees without grievance experience, (n = 193) 13% 43% 19% 11% 14% Employees with prior grievance experience, (n = 48) 17% 46% 10% 19% 8% 27% 69% 4% 0% 0% Group B: Current Civil Service step 4 grievants. 121 TABLE 20: IMPARTIALITY OF HEARING OFFICERS Question asked: In your view, do Civil Service Step 4 Hearings Officers typically provide fair and impartial grievance decisions? Yes No Undecided Responses: Group A : Employees without grievance (n ■ 185) experience. Employees with prior grievance experience at steps 1 , 2, or 3 only. (n « 28) Employees with prior grievance experience at Civil Service step 4 with decision received. (n * 20) 20% 12% 68% 14% 25% 61% 20% 45% 35% 122 TABLE 21: EVALUATION OF DECISIONS FAIRNESS, MSEA VERSUS AFSCME MEMBERS Question asked: In your view, do Civil Service Step 4 Hearings Officers typically provide fair and impartial grievance decisions? Yes No Undecided Responses: Group A : Members of M.S.E.A. (n = 91) 16.5% 8 .8% 74.7% Members of A.F.S.C.M.E. (n » 17) 17.6% 41.2% 41.2% 123 Officers are fair and Impartial, and 35 percent were undecided. This tendency for skepticism about Hearing Officer fairness to increase with experience in the adjudication process may be a reflection of the fact that a large proportion (about 61 percent) of all Step 4 Hearing Officer decisions go against the grievant. 4 Perceptions (in Group A) of Hearing Officer fairness also appear to be related to employee organization membership. A greater percentage of MSEA (75 percent) than of AFSCME (41 percent) were undecided about whether Step 4 Hearing Officers provide fair and impartial decisions. On the other hand, members of AFSCME were much more likely to perceive that Step 4 Hearing Officers are not fair and impartial. As presented in Table 21, 41 percent of the AFSCME respondents and only nine percent of the MSEA respondents reported that Hearing Officers are not fair and Impartial. This may be a reflection of the fact that members of AFSCME as a group have had more experience with the grievance procedure, and thus have more frequently been involved in Step 4 cases decided against them. As reported in Appendix G, Table 6 , AFSCME was involved in 25.8 fourth step decisions per 1000 members in 1977, while MSEA was involved in only 4.4 fourth step decisions per 1000 members during the same period. Also, this greater tendency of AFSCME members to be skepti­ cal of Hearing Officer impartiality is consistent with the fact that AFSCME has elected more often than any other employee organization to appeal grievances to outside arbitration.'* ^Appendix E, Table 28. 5Appendix E, Table 41. On the other hand, MSEA has 124 never used outside arbitration, but rather has chosen to rely exclusively on Civil Service Hearing Officers for adjudication. These differences between AFSCME and MSEA nay be related to the well documented differences between AFL-C10 affiliated unions and state employee associations. 6 AFSCME is an AFL-CIO affiliate and MSEA is an unaffiliated employee association. Generally speaking, unaffiliated employee associations tend to be more conservative, less militant in their advocacy of employee interests, and less likely to favor the use of collective bargaining and private arbitration than affiliated unions. The first question addressed exclusively to the Group B respon­ dents was: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall procedure that must be followed in order to bring a case to a hearing? In answering the question, do not consider the conduct of the actual hearing; consider only the process that must be followed to bring a case from the starting point in the procedure to the hearing. Fifty-five percent of the Group B respondents indicated that they were very satisfied or fairly satisfied, 41 percent reported that they were very or fairly dissatisfied, and six percent were neither satisfied or dissatisfied. Nearly all of the respondents that indicated dissatis­ faction with the procedure reported that excessive amounts of time were C Marshall, J. F., "Public Employee Associations— Roles and Pro­ grams," Public Personnel Management, Vol. 3 (March 1974), pp. 415-425. Martin, J. E., "State Employee Affiliation and Attitude Differ­ ences," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 5 (May 1978), pp. 654-657. Stieber, J., Public Employee Unionism: Structure, Growth, Policy (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institute, 1973), pp. 1-50, 89-113. 125 required to process a grievance through to a hearing. Other complaints cited were: — the procedure is too complicated and includes too many steps. — an employee loses the grievance if he fails to abide by the time limits, but if management fails to respond in a timely fashion it does not lose the grievance. — there is a lack of communication between the Department of Civil Service and other departments. The Group B respondents also evaluated the conduct of their Step 4 hearings through a set of six questions. These six questions, and the percentage of "yes," "no," and "undecided" responses were: — Was there a fair opportunity at your hearing for you or your representative to present witnesses, documents, and other evidence in support of your cases? Yes 74% No 19% Undecided 7% — Was there a fair opportunity at your hearing for you or your representative to cross-examine witnesses presented by the department? Yes 70% No 24% Undecided 6% — Was the Hearing Officer or arbitrator sincerely interested in receiving all the facts that are important to your cases? Yes 67% No 11% Undecided 22% — Did the HearingOfficer or arbitrator make fair rulings on objections during the hearing? Yes 59% — Did you understand Yes 82% No 11% Undecided 30% the hearing procedure? No 9% Undecided 9% — All in all, do you feel that the conduct of the hearing was fair and impartial? Yes 57% No 15% Undecided 28% 126 These results Indicate that a large majority of the grievants awaiting an adjudication decision perceive that their hearing was conducted pro­ perly and fairly. Whether the Group B respondent's grievances was heard in an expe­ dited or in a regular hearing was related to his or her perception of the conduct of the hearing. A substantial majority (68 percent) of the respondents that received an expedited hearing reported that the hearing conduct was fair and impartial, while only 39 percent of the employees that received a regular hearing reported that the hearing was conducted fairly and impartially. These responses are reported in Table 22. Only six percent of those in expedited hearings and 28 percent of those in regular hearings reported that their hearings were not fair and impartial. These differences may reflect the fact that expedited hearings are limit­ ed to cases involving less potential loss to the employee and relatively simple issues and factual situations. Grievants with less to lose may be less critical of the Hearing Officer in charge of the case. And grievants involved with less complex cases may have a better understand­ ing of the issues and facts in the case, thus eliminating one potential source of misunderstanding and mistrust concerning the Hearing Officer's conduct during the hearing. 127 TABLE 22: EVALUATION OF HEARING FAIRNESS, EXPEDITED VERSUS REGULAR HEARINGS Question asked: All in all, do you feel that the conduct of the hearing was fair and impartial? Yes No Undecided Responses: Group B : Grievants that received an expedited hearing. (n = 31) 67.7% 6.5% 25.8% Grievants that received a regular hearing. (n = 18) 38.9% 27.8% 33.3% CHAPTER ELEVEN VIEWS OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEMBERS The four members of the Commission were interviewed concerning their views on the Commission appeals process and the adjudication process generally. The Commissioners view their function to be that of an appellate review body seeking to determine whether decisions reached at lower levels are substantially supported by the evidence. They view themselves as being essentially outside and independent of the state bureaucratic process, and thus able to bring a fresh, Impartial "lay" point of view to the resolution of grievances brought to their attention through the appeal process. A number of topics were treated in the interviews with the Commis­ sioners. The Commission members differed on whether appeals of Civil Service Bureau (technical appeals) actions should be appealable to out­ side arbitration as are regular grievances. Three of the Commissioners said that internal, technical, civil service matters, such as classifi­ cations, selections, and compensation decisions, are not amenable to effective review by persons outside the Department of Civil Service be­ cause of their sensitivity and complexity. One Commissioner reported a personal reluctance to scrutinize Civil Service Bureau technical deci­ sions because of inability to understand such matters. Also, the view was expressed that an outside arbitrator with limited understanding of the state system may endanger the technical integrity of the classification 128 129 system, I.e., produce decisions that cause serious imbalance in the clas­ sification structure. One Commissioner did, however, express a willing­ ness to permit technical appeals to be carried to outside arbitrators who have demonatrated ability to evaluate technical state civil service matters. All Commissioners reported that they approve of the use of ad hoc Hearing Officers to decide fourth step grievance appeals, primarily in order to relieve case load pressures, but also to provide special exper­ tise in unusual cases. The availability of outside arbitration was seen as essential in the few cases in which employees or employee organiza­ tions perceive that an outsider is able to provide a more objective and impartial decision, and are willing to share in the additional cost of arbitration. However, the continued use of internal, full-time Hearing Officers was seen as being vital to maintaining a continuity of knowledge of the state system in the adjudication process. Every Commissioner expressed the conviction that the number of Commission appeals is too large, and requires the use of excessive amounts of time relative to the amount of time available to conduct othe Commis­ sion business. Thus, there was general agreement that the problem of excessive case load was in need of study and solution. The Commissioners unanimously believe that the current design of the grievance system places too little responsibility on employees and employ­ ee organizations to limit appeals of questionable merit, or of a frivo­ lous nature. Two Commissioners suggested that there should be a limit on the types of cases that may be appealed to the Commission, beyond that presently established. Thus, they saw a need to balance the rights of individual employees and departments to appeal cases of limited 130 significance against the need for the Commission to give adequate con­ sideration to matters of greater importance. Finally* all Commissioners believe that it is important to have a Commission made up of individuals from outside of state government, appointed on a nonpartisan basis, to oversee Civil Service procedures. They thought that a Commission so constituted is able to bring fresh, in­ dependent views to the review process. In summary, Commission members favor the present design and opera­ tion of the grievance and appeals procedure. However, they believe that the Commission case load is too large, and that some means to limit Commission appeals should be found. Though no specific recommendations for change were made, it was suggested that some means should be found to discourage the appeal of frivolous or insignificant cases, or to further limit the types of cases that may be appealed to the Commission. PART THREE CHAPTER TWELVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The Michigan grievance procedure was developed, during the forty years of its experience, from a simple, one-step mechanism permitting appeals on only a narrow range of issues, to a multiple set of steps and alternatives providing for appeals on a broad range of issues. Much of this development was undertaken in response to suggestions for Im­ provement offered by many Interested parties in the expectation that the resulting procedure would be more acceptable to the departments, employees, and employee organizations that rely on it as a means for resolving their differences. The procedure provides two basic avenues of grievance adjudication, the Civil Service Hearing Officer and private arbitration. Appeals of technical determinations made by the Department of Civil Service are limited to one avenue of redress, the Technical Hearing Officer. Both grievance and technical appeal decisions are subject to review by the Civil Service Commission. The grievant may elect to obtain grievance adjudication either from a Civil Service Hearing Officer, selected and paid for by the Hearings Division of the Department of Civil Service, or from a private arbitrator jointly selected and paid for, on an equal share basis, by the parties. 131 132 If an employee elects to appeal a grievance to a Civil Service Hearing Officer, the Hearings Division may assign the grievance to either a full time or to an ad hoc Hearing Officer. Full time Hearing Officers are state career civil servants, while ad hoc Hearing Officers are typically lawyers, practicing arbitrators, or university profes­ sors. Ad hoc Hearing Officers are used primarily to handle excess case volume, but occasionally may be selected for their special exper­ tise on certain issues. Employees may elect to be represented in adjudication by any agent of their choice. About 81 percent of all grievances in adjudication are represented by a union or employee association official. The re­ maining grievances are represented by private attorneys, fellow em­ ployees, or by the grievant himself. Since 1972 the Hearings Division has increased its staff of full time Hearing Officers from one to eight, including four regular Hearing Officers that decide regular grievances and four Technical Hearing Officers that decide appeals of technical civil service determinations involving classification and selection issues. The Hearings Division also employs eight or nine ad hoc Hearing Officers to decide grievances. The number of grievance decisions issued increased from 168 in 1973 to 371 in 1977. Decisions on technical matters increased from 105 in 1975, the first year that technical Hearing Officers were placed in the Hearings Division, to 257 in 1976, and then declined to 199 in 1977. Over the entire period, 1973-1977, a total of 1,325 grievance decisions and 562 technical decisions, or a total of 1,887 decisions, were issued by Hearing Officers. Appeals to the Civil Service Commission were 133 brought on 415 of the 1,887 cases, which Included 355 brought on grievance decisions and sixty on Technical Hearing Officer decisions. Conclusions This research examined the acceptability of the Michigan system of grievance adjudication in terms of four fundamental factors: adju­ dicator impartiality, adjudicator qualifications, adjudication timeli­ ness, and adjudication costs. Several cautionary notes should be raised concerning the following interpretations of the results. First, no empirical studies have been conducted of how the parties in other settings view the systems of adjudication they use. Thus, it is not known whether the Michigan parties are more satisfied or less satisfied with the Michigan system of adjudication than are the parties in other settings with their methods of adjudication. Second, it should be kept in mind that the win/loss record under the Michigan system favors the employer by a substantial margin. It is not known to what extent this fact is known by the parties, but it may influence their perceptions of the system regardless of how impartial and qualified the Hearing Officers may be. Finally, other factors in the Michigan Civil Service environment which have not been empirically controlled in this research may have an important influence on the parties1 perceptions of the adjudication system. For instance, the acceptability of the policies and rules involved in grievances may affect the parties1 perceptions of the adjudication system. In particular, if an employee is dissatisfied 134 with a rule that requires him to be penalized, he may generalize that dissatisfaction to his perceptions of the adjudication process. Impartiality Impartiality has been examined in terms of the applicable adminis­ trative policies and arrangements and in terms of the perceptions of the grievance parties. 1. Administration The Michigan system of adjudication is based on a complex set of administrative policies and arrangements that provide reasonable assurance of the impartiality of the adjudicators and the process. The parties to grievances under the Michigan system do not share in the selection of Hearing Officers. Rather, the Department of Civil Service selects Hearing Officers and administers all aspects of the adjudication process. In this role, the Department of Civil Service is cast as a neutral relative to departments and grievants. The Department of Civil Service is responsible to determine the state's classification, testing, compensation, and labor relations policies and, generally, to regulate employment relations in the state civil service. The nineteen operating departments carry out these personnel management functions within the policy guidelines and regula­ tions established by the Department of Civil Service. It is within the context of this broad management responsibility that the Department must act as a neutral in administering the adjudication function. In order to safeguard the impartiality of the adjudication process the Department has devised certain administrative arrangements. 135 Historically, the adjudication function was administered jointly with the labor relations function, which was responsible to advocate the state's labor relations stance in dealings with employee organizations. In 1974, the Hearings Division was established in order to provide for a separation in the administration of the Department's adjudicatory and management advocacy functions. The Hearings Division, since 1974, has been solely responsible for the selection of Hearing Officers and the administration of all aspects of the adjudication process. However, the Hearings Division remains in the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Director of the Hearings Division reports to the Director of the Labor Relations Bureau, who in turn reports to the State Personnel Director. As an additional precaution, the Hearings Division hasbeen housed in a facility that is entirely separate from the offices thathouse other Department of Civil Service functions. all This geographic separa­ tion was intended to minimize day-to-day contact between the depart­ ment's adjudicatory and advocacy personnel. This enables the Hearings Division to conduct hearings and related business away from "manage­ ment's territory." The Department, in 1974, also established certain policies to enhance the impartiality of Hearing Officers and to protect the due process rights of employees and departments. The Department provided that: 1. Each Hearing Officer is solely responsible for the decisions he or she issues, and that decisions are not subject to approval by the Director of the Hear­ ings Division. 136 2. Hearing Officers may not discuss their decisions with the State Personnel Director, the Director of the Labor Relations Bureau, or any other state official (with the exception of more experienced Hearing Officers for training purposes). 3. Voluntary Rules of the American Arbitration Associa­ tion are adopted to guide Hearing Officers In the con­ duct of hearings, and in their relations with the parties to receive notice of hearings, to present evidence and testimony, and to cross examine wit­ nesses. They instruct Hearing Officers to avoid con­ flict of Interest situations in which questions con­ cerning their impartiality may be raised. These policies and administrative arrangements do not assure the impar­ tiality of Hearing Officers and of the adjudication process. However, they do tend to create a climate of concern regarding the due process rights of the parties and the impartiality of Hearing Officers, and reduce the potential for the undesirable influence that may result from frequent association among Hearing Officers and the Department's management advocacy personnel. Moreover, based on the questionnaire responses of Hearing Officers to hypothetical "conflict of interest" situations, it appears that Hearing Officers are able to recognize the possibility of a conflict of interest in their relations with grievants department representatives, and other state personnel. Overall, the adjudication policies and practices used to safeguard employee rights in Michigan are highly elaborate and sophisticated in comparison to what is used in nearly all other noncollective bargaining state Civil Service settings. Most other states rely on the department heads, personnel officials, or an oversight authority to adjudicate all or most grievances rather than on professional Hearing Officers and arbitrators. 137 2. The Parties* Perceptions of Impartiality Overall, employer and employee organization representatives are satisfied with the Impartiality of Hearing Officers and arbitrators, though employee organization representatives tended to be considerably less satisfied than department representatives. Specifically, about seventy to eighty percent of the department representatives and about fifty to sixty percent of employee representa­ tives indicate they are satisfied with the impartiality of regular grievance Hearing Officers. About sixty percent of the department and only one of the six employee organizations was satisfied with the impartiality of technical Hearing Officers.'*' Finally, department and employee organization officials reported that private arbitrators and ad hoc Hearing Officers were seen as having more credibility as impartial decision makers because they are not part of the career civil service and derive their principal income from sources independent of state employment. The most important finding regarding employee perceptions is that a large majority (64 percent) of the respondents indicated that they are undecided about whether Hearing Officers are impartial. This reflects the fact that relatively few employees have any personal experience with adjudication on which to base an evaluation of Hearing Officers, and accordingly, they are not certain one way or the other "*Tt is important to point out that there have been practically no previous Btudies made of employer, union, and employee perceptions of grievance procedures, either under negotiated collective bargaining agreements or in nonunion situations. Therefore, great care should be exercised in drawing any normative conclusions from these findings. 138 about Hearing Officer Impartiality. This Indicates there Is no strong predisposition of employees to be skeptical of Hearing Officer Impar­ tiality. Only nineteen percent indicated that Hearing Officers are impartial while only about sixteen percent reported that Hearing Officers are not impartial. Employees who had received an adjudication decision were much more likely to indicate that Hearing Officers are not impartial. The data reported in Table 20 on page 121 indicate that as employees gain knowledge of the system they are less likely to per­ ceive that Hearing Officers are impartial. This may be explained by the fact that sixty percent of all adjudications are lost by employees. Also, significant is the fact that a majority (57 percent) of the respondents who very recently had received an adjudication hearing, but had not yet received the Hearing Officer's decision, indicated that the Hearing was conducted impartially. Whether these perceptions would change after receipt of the Hearing Officer's decision is not dealt with empirically in this research. Finally, the employees who received an expedited hearing were more likely to perceive that they had been treated fairly than those who had received a regular hearing. reasons for this difference are not clear. The However, the author con­ cludes tentatively that the more informal expedited hearings give the grievant a better chance to be heard and to get his grievance "off his chest." This may contribute to the employee's perception of being treated fairly. In addition, grievants may have a better grasp of the issues and facts involved in the relatively simple and nonserious types of cases dealt with in expedited hearings. Having a better grasp of the situation may allow the grievant to have a clearer understanding of 139 Hearing Officer rulings and behavior during the hearing, thus reducing one potential area of mistrust. In conclusion, we have three bases on which to evaluate the impartiality of Hearing Officers: (1) administrative policies and arrangements, (2) department and employee organization perceptions, and (3) employee perceptions. The administrative aspects are largely sound and provide reasonable assurance of impartiality. Department represen­ tatives, most of whom have extensive experience with adjudication, generally are satisfied with the impartiality of Hearing Officers. Employee organization representatives are much less satisfied with the impartiality of Hearing Officers. Employees, for the most part, have little experience with adjudication and a large majority are uncertain whether Hearing Officers are impartial. Those with experience under the system are more likely to doubt Hearing Officer impartiality. The responses of employees with very recent experience indicate that most perceive that their hearing was conducted fairly, and those who received an expedited hearing are more likely to perceive that they were treated impartially. Finally, the parties are much less satisfied with the impartiality of technical Hearing Officers than with that of regular Hearing Officers. Only about one half the departments hold favorable views of technical Hearing Officer impartiality, while only a small minority of employee organizations are satisfied with their impartiality. 140 Qualifications The qualifications of full time Hearing Officers include either substantial advanced education or experience in law, labor relations and personnel administration, or a combination of education and experi­ ence in these fields. No full time Hearing Officer had experience in the conduct of labor arbitration prior to employment in the Hearing Division. In comparison with private arbitrators, Hearing Officers are less qualified in terms of experience, and educational background. However, one researcher found that such qualifications make no dif­ ference in the outcome of routine cases. The Hearings Division appears to recognize this through its practice of employing seasoned, private arbitrators as ad hoc Hearing Officers to decide the most difficult or sensitive cases. Most department and employee organization representatives do not have a preference for either Hearing Officers or arbitrators, but reported that their preference would depend on the nature of the griev­ ance involved. Full time Civil Service Hearing Officers are preferred for grievances in which an understanding of Civil Service policies, rules, and past practice is essential. Arbitrators are preferred in cases in which greater need for credibility as an independent decision maker is required. A majority (eighty percent) of department respondents were satisifed with the clarity, and logical consistency of grievance deci­ sions, while about 55 percent were satisfied with the clarity and con­ sistency of technical decisions. 141 Employee organization respondents were widely divided in their views of the clarity and consistency of grievance and technical deci­ sions, without a clear majority indicating either satisfaction or dis­ satisfaction. Timeliness Grievances appealed under the Michigan Civil Service system to outside arbitrators were decided about six months after the appeal to arbitration and about ten weeks after the hearing. Civil Service Hearing Officer decisions under the Michigan system are issued an average of about four months after the appeal date and about eight weeks after the date of the hearing. Thus Hearing Officer decisions are more timely than arbitrator decisions on Michigan Civil Service grievances. It should be noted that the greater time delay between the date of the appeal and the date of the hearing for arbitrators is largely attributable to the fact that arbitrators are selected through a joint process which is more time consuming than the uni­ lateral appointment of Hearing Officers. Also, arbitrators, once selected, may be more difficult as a group to schedule a hearing date with because many of them pursue full time careers in teaching, research, or legal practice. Despite the fact that the timeliness of Hearing Officer decisions compares quite favorably with that of arbitrators, a large majority of both department and employee organization respondents are dissatisfied with the timeliness of grievance and technical appeal decisions. 142 Expedited hearings have risen since 1975 from 23 percent to 43 percent of all fourth step hearings. The use of expedited proceedings has enabled Hearing Officers to hear more cases, but the amount of time elapsed between appeal and hearing and from hearing to decision is not less for expedited cases than for cases handled through regular pro­ cedures. The administration of expedited hearings needs to be strength­ ened in order to realize their potential for improving timeliness. Costs In fiscal year 1977-78, the cost per case to the State of griev­ ance decisions by full time Hearing Officers ($513) was substantially less than the per case cost of ad hoc Hearing Officers ($753), or of Civil Service grievances appealed to private arbitration ($672). These figures include the cost of secretarial and court reporter services. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service reports that the arbitrators it refers charge an average of $753 in fees and expenses per decision. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service report did not include the costs of transcripts. Nevertheless, the cost per decision of full time Hearing Officers is considerably less than the cost of other types of adjudication. These differences in cost reflect to a great extent the preference of the parties in private arbitration for arbitrators with extensive experience and educational qualifica­ tions who can demand a per decision fee that far exceeds the per deci­ sion salary paid to full time Hearing Officers. Finally, outside arbitration is used very infrequently under the Michigan system apparently because the parties have decided that its 143 high cost relative to the "no charge" Hearing Officer is not justified in a vast majority of the cases. Commission Review The Commission members perceive their function to be that of an oversight authority with the responsibility to represent the interests of the public, the employees, and the departments. They believe that their status as lay persons with no career commitment to the state civil service enables them to bring a fresh, objective point of view to the review process. In accordance with this, they see their review function to be an important added assurance that the interests and rights of employees and departments will be accorded fair treatment in the grievance procedure. In order to discharge their review function, the members of the Commission devote from two to four days per month to studying and decid­ ing Commission appeals. This constitutes about two-thirds of the total time they spend on the conduct of all Commission business. The Comis- sioners believe that this case load is excessive, and that some means to limit Commission appeals should be devised. They see a need to discourage the appeal of frivolous or insignificant matters and to further limit the type of cases that may be appealed to the Commission. A substantial minority of both departments and employee organiza­ tions believe that the Civil Service Commission does not provide an effective review of Hearing Officer and arbitrator decisions appealed to the Commission. Specific comments indicated dissatisfaction with the brevity of Commission decisions, and concern over the extent of the 144 Commission's reliance on staff to analyze the large volume of appeals. However, from 50 to 65 percent were undecided concerning the effective­ ness of the Commission's review function. This is largely due to their lack of experience with grievances appealed to the Commission. In view of the concerns of the Commission members and the griev­ ance parties, it is clear that some modification in the role of the Commission should be considered. Summary The Michigan system of adjudication is largely sound in terms of the four acceptability factors examined in this research. The adminis­ trative policies and arrangements supporting the adjudication process are reasonable. Though significant amounts of dissatisfaction were found to exist, department and, to a lesser extent, employee organiza­ tion representatives indicate that in great measure they are satisfied with the impartiality of Hearing Officers. A large majority of the employees, those who lack experience with adjudication, appear not to be predisposed to doubt Hearing Officer impartiality. Hearing Officers possess very good qualifications, and are prepared for their work through substantial training in the Hearings Division. Finally, Hearing Officer decisions are on the whole more timely and less costly than decisions issued by arbitrators. Thus, the findings of this study sup­ port the hypothesis that a system of adjudication that is based pri­ marily on the use of Hearing Officers, selected unilaterally and employed by the employer, can attain a high degree of acceptability. The accept­ ability of the system is secured through the use of administrative 145 arrangements and policies that work to safeguard the impartiaility of the process, and through reliance on well-qualified Hearing Officers that provide timely grievance decisions at a reasonable cost relative to what is provided under other systems. However, the findings of this study indicate that there is serious dissatisfaction regarding some aspects of the procedure which are addressed in the following recom­ mendations . Recommenda tions 1. Instead of employing full time Hearing Officers in several civil service classifications as at present, a single Hearing Officer classification should be established with specific standards of education, experience and other qualifications relevant to the position. Hearing Officer salaries should be set at a level that will continue to attract highly motivated and qualified individuals to what is one of the most important and responsible positions in the classified civil service. 2 . In order to further separate the adjudication function from the management advocacy responsibilities of the Department of Civil Service, the Hearings Division should be removed from the Labor Relations Bureau and established as a separate bureau. The direc­ tor of the new Hearings Bureau should report directly to the Civil Service Commission. This measure should increase the extent to which state employees perceive the technical appeals and adjudica­ tion process to be Impartial, and free from association with the 146 management oriented forces of the other units of the Department of Civil Service. 3. An advisory board with department, employee organization, and public representation should be established to oversee the administration of the Hearings Division. The Board should have a neutral chairman drawn from its public members, that reports directly to the Civil Service Commission. A major function of the Board should be to review the selection, training, and decisions of Hearing Officers to assure their impartiality and competence. The members of the board should be used in a blind review process to periodically evaluate the soundness of Hearing Officer decisions. Proper exe­ cution of the board's functions should enhance the credibility of technical and regular Hearing Officer impartiality and competence. 4. The time lapse between Step 4 appeal and decision is too long. It is a major source of dissatisfaction by departments, employee organizations, and employees. Three measures are suggested to deal with this problem: a) Additional attention should be given to the time it takes to process grievances and technical appeals from appeal to hearing and from hearing to decision. Statistics on the timeliness of hearings and decisions should be compiled and utilized to monitor the timeliness of individual Hearing Officers. The evaluation of Hearing Officers should place additional emphasis on the extent to which they meet realistic and fair time targets in processing cases, as well as on the quality of their work. b) "Expedited" cases should be heard and decided much more promptly than cases processed through regular procedures. In order to attain this objective, one or more full time Hearing Officers should be assigned exclusively to handle "expedited" cases within established time limits. Hearing Officers should be rotated on this assignment for periods of six months or longer. A second approach might be to utilize ad hoc Hearing Officers exclusively on expedited cases with established time limits for hearing and decision. Since ad hoc Hearing Officers cost over fifty percent more than full time Hearing Officers, assigning them to "expedited" cases should reduce the overall costs of the Hearings Division. c) If reasonable time limits established for processing regular and expedited cases cannot be met, the full time Hearing Officer staff should be increased. This is preferable to using more ad hoc Hearing Officers who are much more costly on a per case basis. Excessive amounts of time of Civil Service Commission Members is required to review and decide appeals from adjudication decisions. To correct this problem, the following approaches should be considered: a) Reduce the categories of cases on which appeals may be exer­ cised. However, since almost three-fourths of all appeals heard by the Commission are taken on discharge cases, there is little potential relief in this approach. Discharge grievances are too important to the parties to deny the right of appeal. 148 Though there may be some potential for reducing the number of nondischarge appeals heard by the Commission, the effect on Commission work load would not be significant, b) Establish the position of Commission Hearing Officer, to be appointed by the Commission as its personal representative to hear and decide all appeals from decisions by Civil Service Hearing Officers referred by the Commission Appeals Officer. Appeals from arbitration decisions should continue to be heard and decided by the Commission. The Commission Hearing Officer should report directly to the Commission and be independent of the Hearings Division of the Department of Civil Service. Appeals from decisions of the Commission Hearing Officer to the Commission should be permitted only in exceptional cases, based on standards developed by the Commission after consultation with civil service departments and employee organizations. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE 49 OTHER STATES 149 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY School of Labor and Industrial Relations South Kedzle Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 RE: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE A research group In the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University is in the process of studying the design and operation of grievance procedures used in state civil service employment. This study is supported by a research grant received under the authority of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. We need the help of state government personnel directors from the fifty states, and would like to have you participate by providing us with some basic information about the grievance procedure(s) available to state civil service employees in your state. After completion of this study we will issue a report containing a summary of data, and a statement of findings and conclusions. If you want to obtain a copy of this report please furnish us with a return addressed, stamped, post card which we will use to inform you how and when you may obtain a copy of the report. An important part of the study involves identifying the types of grievance procedures presently in use in state civil service employ­ ment. The attached questionnaire includes questions about the design and operation of the grievance procedure(s) used by state civil service employees in your state. The questionnaire also requests that you provide us with copies of important documents related to the grievance procedure(s). Your cooperation in assembling the requested documentation and forward­ ing it along with the completed questionnaire to the address indicated below will be greatly appreciated. With many thanks, Kent Murrmann Research Assistant Jack Stieber Professor and Project Director PLEASE FORWARD QUESTIONNAIRE AND REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION TO: ATTN: KENT MURRMANN Jack Stieber, Director 400 S. Kedzle Hall School of Labor and Industrial Relations Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 In completing your responses to this questionnaire please attach additional pages needed. Is there a formal grievance procedure for state civil service employees in your state? Yes No If yes, please provide us with a copy of the written grievance procedure. If the answer to 1 is yes, when and how was (were) the grievance procedure(s) established? Please provide us with a copy of any legislative language, personnel rules, civil service rules, leading court opinions, leading attorney general opinions, or collective bargaining agreements that authorize, establish, and/or limit the grievance procedure(s). Please identify below any documents that you provide to us. What items are subject to the grievance procedure? Please identify and explain any significant items that are excluded from the grievance procedure. What is the terminal part of the grievance procedure: state personnel director decision, civil service commission decision, appeal board, advisory arbitration, final and binding arbitration, other? If arbitration is used, how many cases have been appealed to it in the last year? Are there any major areas of disagreement about or dissatisfaction with the design and operation of the grievance procedure(s)? Yes No If yes, please briefly identify and describe them below. 151 7. What changes in the grievance procedure(s), if any, are expected during the next few years? INFORMATION NEEDED FOR FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS: Name of person completing the questionnaire Position Address Telephone Number APPENDIX B RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO OTHER STATES APPENDIX B AUTHORITIES THAT MAKE FINAL AND BINDING DECISIONS UNDER UNILATERAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES T ype o f D e c is io n M aker 1. S ta te s H ead o f A gency o r D e p a rtm e n t 2. C h ie f A d m in is tra to r o r P e rso n n e l O ffic ia l 3. H e a rin g s O ffic e r E m p lo y e d by S ta te 4. G e n e ra l O v e rs ig h t A u th o rity * 5. S p e c ia l P u rp o se A p p e a ls A gency X A la b a m a A riz o n a A rk a n sa s X C a lifo rn ia X C o lo ra d o X D e la w a re X G e o rg ia X X Id a h o X X In d ia n a Iowa (X ) (X ) 6. T rip a rtite H e a rin g s Panel M u tu a lly S e le c te d A rb itra to r APPENDIX B (cont.) AUTHORITIES THAT MAKE FINAL AND BINDING DECISIONS UNDER UNILATERAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES T ype o f D e c is io n M aker S ta te s 3. K ansas X 4. 5. X K e n tu c k y X L o u is ia n n a X M a in e X (X ) M a ry la n d (X ) M ic h ig a n (X ) X M is s is s ip p i X X M is s o u ri X X X N e b ra sk a X X N o rth C a r o lin a X (X ) O k la h o m a X S o u th C a r o l i n a X N evada (X ) (X ) APPENDIX B (cont.) AUTHORITIES THAT MAKE FINAL AND BINDING DECISIONS UNDER UNILATERAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES Type of Decision Maker States 1. 2. 3. 4. South Dakota X Tennessee X X Utah X X X Virgina West Virgina X X X X Wyoming Note: (X) indicates an intermediate level or advisory function. *May be a Civil Service Commission or a State Personnel Board. Source: 6. X X Texas 5. Tabulated from questionnaire responses from the other 49 states. X 7. APPENDIX B (cont.) AUTHORITIES THAT MAKE FINAL AND BINDING DECISIONS UNDER UNILATERAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES Type of Decision Maker States 1. 2. 3. 4. South Dakota X Tennessee X X Utah X X X Virgina West Virgina X X X X Wyoming Note: (X) indicates an intermediate level or advisory function. *May be a Civil Service Commission or a State Personnel Board. Source: 6. X X Texas 5. Tabulated from questionnaire responses from the other 49 states. X 7. APPENDIX B (cont.) AUTHORITIES THAT MAKE FINAL AND BINDING DECISIONS UNDER UNILATERAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES Type of Decision Maker States 3. 4. Kansas X Kentucky X Louisianna X Maine X 5. Maryland (X) Michigan (X) X Mississippi X X Missouri X X Nebraska Nevada (X) X X X North Carolina X (X) Oklahoma X South Carolina X (X) (X) APPENDIX C THE GRIEVANCE AND APPEALS PROCEDURE FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE CIVIL SERVICE 157 S ta te o f M ichigan O S -3 3 3 1077 GRIEVANCE AND APPEALS PR O C ED U R E FOR E M P L O Y E E S IN T H E S T A T E CI VI L S E R V I C E November 1, 1973 (As amended through June 17, 1977) COMBINED DEPARTMENT AND CIVIL SERVICE PROCEDURE This latest statement of the statewide grievance and appeals procedure, available to all employees, establishes employeeand management rights andobligations onbothdepartment grievancesandcivil service testingandclassificationappeals. 1. GENERALPROVISIONS 1. A U T H O R I Z A T IO N It is authorized by theCivil ServiceCommission under Rule33 (Appeals), 2. PURPOSE The purpose of the grievance andappeals procedureshell be to provideanorderly systemof resolvingemployeegrievances in an equitable and timely manner without fear of reprisal. Every effort shall be made to reach a clear understanding of the exact nature and facts of the grievance and of the relief requested, and to explore sound resolution of the grievance. 3. REPRESENTATION At Step t of the Grievance Procedure the grievant may have one fellowemployee representative. The grievant may have representation of his choice beginning at Step 2 in the Grievance Procedure, in the Civil Service Bureau Appeals Procedure, intheCommissionAppeal Procedure, andinTrial BoardProcedures. a. Fellowemployee: Another employeeof thesameprincipal department andsamesubagency. b. Spokesman:Wheremore thanone representative ispresent, thegrievant shall designatehis chief spokesman. 4. ADMINISTRATIVELEAVE Necessary and reasonable absence fromwork for scheduled grievance adjustment meetings with supervisors. Civil Service Department representatives, and forCivil Serviceappeal meetings, shall be grantedthegrievant andone representativewithout loss of pay or leave credits. Grievant. one fellowemployee representative where grievant is not representedbyanemployee organization paid staff representative or attorney, and necessary witnesses timely called by the grievant shall lose nopayor leave credits for necessary travel and attendance at ascheduled Civil Service Hearing, but overtime and travel expenses are not authorized. 5. TIMELIMITATIONS a. Time shall be counted in terms of weekdays, defined as Monday through Friday, excluding employment holidays. b. Grievances shall be presented within 10weekdays of the employee becoming aware of the cause of the grievance. Civil Service Department staff decisions shall be appealable within 20 weekdays of notice to the employee. c. Late appeals at any step may be filed only upon showing of good cause for delay. d. Regardless of belated awareness of the cause of grievance or of goodcause for late filing, nogrievanceshall be filed on events, nor relief be retroactive to events, which occurred more than 90 calendar days before the filingdate, however, the Department, HearingOfficer or Arbitrator may accept grievances and yramretroactive relief of up to one yearafteroccurrenceif special extenuatingcircumstancesarefound. e. All appeals tothe State Personnel Director. HearingOfficer, andArbitrator, must be receivedwithin IS weekdays of themailingorpersonal deliverydateof thedecisionat thenext lower step. f All appeals to the Commission must be filed with the Commission Appeals Officer within 20 weekdays of the mailing date of the decision of the adjudicating officer. In the absence of timely appeal the last decision at any step of the grievance and appeal procedure becomes final. g. Any grievance upon which ananswer is not made by the Department within the time limns prescribed, or within any written extension agreement, may be appealed to the next step of the grievance andappeals procedurewithin 10weekdays fromthedate whenthe Depaitment’s time lot answerexpired Any unanswered grievance not appealed within this time limit is deemed closed upon the basis oi the last answer h. Timelimits maybe extended bymutual agreement inwriting. 158 2- 6. LIMITATIONSONGRIEVANCES a. ProbationaryService Ratings Thereshell be noappeal beyondStep3on probationaryserviceratingsof newemployees, b. Probationary Dismissals There shall be no appeal beyond Step 3 on dismissals of newemployees whichoccur duringorupon completionof the probationary period, unless the employee provides evidence of discrimination prohibited by Rule 1.2. This limitation shail not apply to any continuing employee who has previously achieved full civil service status. c. Counseling Counseling memoranda or reprimands are not appealable beyond the final department step, but service ratings are griavablebeyondsuchstep. 7. DEPARTMENTTRIALBOARDS Where an employee is required to report on his conduct to a trial board, board of inquiry, patient abuse committee, or similar fact-finding board, making any determination prior to imposition of discipline on him, he shall have the right to appear, to have representation, and to have an opportunity to call witnesses. He shall receive acopy of the findings and have anopportunity for post-hearing appeal to his appointing authority before imposition of discipline. 8. SHORTENEDSTEPS a. Adverse Action Dismissal, suspension, demotion, layoff, or any griavable action taken bymanagement at alevel higher thanthatof the immediate supervisor, is initially grievable at the next higher step of the grievance procedureabove theofficial acting. If a dismissal or suspension grievance is filed at Step 3, there shall be a conference with the employee. b. GroupGrievance Employees having a common complaint may sign and file one group grievance, indicating a maximum of three fellowemployee spokesmen anda representative of their choice. The grievance shall be filed at the lowest ste^of thegrievanceprocedure involvingacommon supervisor. 9. WAIVEROFSTEPS Upon application of an employee and a department, or on his own motion, the State Personnel Director may waive any step or steps of the Department of Civil Service grievance procedure to permit accelerated handling. II. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 1 DEFINITION Agrievance is acomplaint of violation of personnel taw. policy, rules, regulation, procedure, conditionof employment, past practice, oragreement, oradispute overitsapplicationandinterpretation, oraclaimof disciplinewithout just cause. 2. PROCEDURE DEPARTMENTSTEP1 An employee who has a grievablecomplaint shall orally discuss it withhis immediatesupervisorwithin ten(101 week­ daysof becomingaware of thecausaof hiscomplaint. The immediate supervisor shall have two 121weekdays fromthe date of discussion to orally informthe employee of hit answer. DEPARTMENTSTEP2 If not satisfied with the Step 1 grievance decision, the employee shall explain his grievance inwriting on grievance FormCS-G1 over his signature and file it with his immediate supervisor within five (5) weekdays of receiving his oral answer. The immediate supervisor shall write his answer on the FormCS-G1 and transmit theemployee'swrittengrievanceto theappropriateStep 2supervisoryofficial designated bythedepartment, withacopy to theemployee. Within 10 weekdays from date of filing the CS-G1, the Step 2 supervisor shall hold an oral conference with the employee and issue a decision in writing on grievance answer FormCS-G2. DEPARTMENT STEP 3 If not satisfied with the Step 2 grievance decision, the employee shall, within five (51 weekdays of receiving such decision, returnhis copy of FormCS-G2 to the Step 2 supervisor with his signed notice of appeal. The Step 2 supervisor shall transmit his grievance answer FormCS-G2 and the employee's written qnevance Form CS-G1 to the principal department director, or his designated personal representative, at Step 3. 159 •3The department director, or his designated personal representative, shall have fifteen (151 weekdays fromdate of filing at Step 3 to hold any conference he deems necessary, and to issue adecision inwriting on grievance answer FormCS-G2. CIVILSERVICESTEP4 If not satisfied with the Step 3 grievance decision, theemployee shall withinfifteen (15) weekdays of the mailingdate or personal delivery date of such decision file hisgrievanceinwritingoverhis signatureontheStep3 grievanceanswer Form CS-G2, together with a copy of the completed FormCS-GI and the completed Step 2 supervisor's answer FormCS-G2 to; Hearing Officer, Department of Civil Service, Hearings Division, Lewis Cass Building, Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan48909. The State Personnel Director shall authoriie the Director, Hearings Division, and assigned Staff Members as Civil Service Hearing Officers to conduct hearings anddecide grievance cases. Hearings shall be held within 40 weekdays. Prior investigation and pre-hearingconciliation may be made at the discretion of the Hearings Division. CIVILSERVICESTEP5 The award of aCivil Service Hearing Officer may be appealed to the Commissionuponasatisfactorywrittenshowing of thegroundsspecifiedInRule33.2 andtheCommission Appeal Regulations (SeeArticleV). III. GRIEVANCETOARBITRATION 1. EMPLOYEEALTERNATIVE As an alternative to appeal to a Civil Service HearingOfficer, an employee may elect final and binding arbitration of the grievance at defined in Article II, Section 1with the exceptionof separations fromemployment. Noticeof election must be filed in writing with the Department of Civil Service within 15 weekdays of mailing or personal delivery of the final Department answer. The employee shall assume one-half all costs. The employee’s Department shall performall conditions necessary, andshareequally inthecost of arbitration. 2. PRE-ARBITRATIONCONFERENCE The Arbitration Officer shall investigate the grievance, schedule apre-arbitrationconference of the parties within 20 week­ days to explore conciliation of the grievance, to obtain agreement on the issues and stipulations to be submitted and to coordinate representation of the state inarbitration. 3. ARBITRATORSELECTIONPROCEDURE Within 5weekdays thereafter the employee shall file his request with the selecting agency or acknowledge acceptance of a mutually agreed arbitrator. Unless agreement hasalreadybeenreachedon any preferred method of selection, the arbitrator shall be selected and the hearing conducted under the rulesof the AmericanArbitrationAssociation. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or Michigan Employment Relations Commission may be used by mutual agreement. Liability for retroactive relief shall not accrue further beyond 30 days from the earliest hearing date for which the arbitrator Is available and which management accepts. 4. APPEAL TO COMMISSION The award of an arbitrator may be appealed to the Commission upon a satisfactory written showing of the grounds specified in Rule 33.2 and the Commission Appeal Regulations ISee Article V). IV. APPEALPROCEDUREFORCIVILSERVICE BUREAU ACTIONS 1. REOETERMINATIONANOAPPEALSPROCEDUREFORTHESELECTIONBUREAU Decisions of the Selection Bureau staff affecting applicants are subject to a redetermination and appeals procedure as outlined below: a. REDETERMINATION The applicant will have 20 weekdays (i.e., regular work days) after receiving notification of the action taken to file a Request for Redetermination with the Selection Bureau. The Selection Bureau may hold a conference, request additional information in writing, or both, to clarify the issue(s) and the positions of the parties. The Director of the Selection Bureauwill then issue aredeterminationdecision which will stale a findingof facts, conclusions andsupportingreason(s). Thedecisionwill beissuedwithin30weekdaysafter receipt of ail information. b. APPEALTOTHEHEARINGSDIVISION The applicant may appeal if not satisfied with the redetermination decision. The appeal must be filed within 15 weekdays after receiving tne decision fromthe Selection Bureau Director. Appeals should be addressed to the Hearings Division, Department of Civil Service. 160 The Hearings Division will schedule a hearing before a Technical Hearing Officer on the decision rendered in the redetermination process. Appeal to the Hearings Division must include a statement identifying points of disagree­ ment and supporting reasons, data and documents. The HearingOfficer will consider only those facts and conten­ tions presentedduringthe redeterminationprocess. Awrittendecisionwill be issued. c. APPEALTOTHECIVILSERVICECOMMISSION The decision of the Technical Hearing Officer may be appealed to theCivil ServiceCommissionunder Commission Rule33.2 and theCommissionAppeal Regulations (See Article V). d. FORMS Request for Redetermination Forms (CS-4091 may be obtained from the Selection Bureau, Department of Civil Service, in Lansing, or the Civil Service Detroit Regional Office, MichiganState PlaaaBuilding, 1200Sixth Avenue, Detroit, Michigan48226. Form(CS-4031 for filing anappeal with the Hearings Division may be obtainedinagencyordepartment personnel offices or fromthe Department of Civil Service. 2. REDETERMINATIONANDAPPEALSPROCEDUREFORTHECLASSIFICATIONBUREAU Decisions of the Classification Bureau staff affecting employees are subject to a redetermination and appeals procedure as outlinedbelow: a. REDETERMINATION The employee will have 20 weekdays after receiving notification of the classificationaction taken to filea Request for Redeterminationwith the Bureauof Classification. The Bureauof Classification may hold aconference, request additional information, or both, toclarify the issueisl andthepositions of the parties. The Director of Classification or his designated representative will issue adecision on redetermination which will state a finding of facts, conclusions and supporting reasons. The decision will be issued within 30 weekdays after receipt of all information, if possible. If there is a large volume of requests, decisions may oe delayed. II) REDETERMINATIONS ARISING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEWSERVICES Filing procedures and time limits are the same asstatedabove. Redeterminationdecisionschanging the initial determination will be effective on the dateof implementationof thenewservice. If implementationdecisions are delayed for certain classes or positions ina service, the employee will still have 20 weekdays to request redetermination after notification of-the newclass and level. b. APPEALS PROCEDURE The employeewill have 15weekdays to file anappeal with the Hearings Division. Department of Civil Service. Lewis Cass Building, Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan 48909, after receiving the decision on redetermination from the Bureau of Classification. The Hearings Division will schedule a hearing b e f o r e a Technical HearingOfficer on the decision rendered in the redeterminationprocess. Appeal to the Hearings Divisionmust includeastatement identifyingpoints of disagreement and supporting reasons, data and documents. The Hearing Officer will consider only those facts and contentions presented during the redetermination process. Awritten decision will be issued. c. APPEALTOTHECIVILSERVICECOMMISSION The decision of the Technical Hearing Officer may be appealed to the Civil Service Commission under Rule 33.2 and the Commission Appeal Regulations {Sea Article V). d. FORMS Forms for requesting a redetermination ICS-212TI or the filing anappeal ICS-403I maybeobtained inthe Depart­ ment oragency personnel office. Completed forms shouldbereturnedto thepersonnel office. V. APPEALTOCIVILSERVICECOMMISSION 1. APPEALOFRIGHT Anemployee may file anappeal of right to theCommissionfromanadjudicatingofficer affirmanceof adismissal forcause. 2. LEAVETOAPPEAL An employee, appropriate employer, exclusive representative, state personnel director or citizen may appeal any other decisionof anadjudicatingofficer onlyupon applicationandleavegrantedinthediscretionof theCommission. 3. FILING Ail appeals to the Commission shall be filed in writing with the Commission Appeals Officer within 20 weekdays of the mailing date of the decision. Appeals shall be addressed: Michigan Civil Service Commission, c/o Commission Appeals Officer, Bureau of Labor Relations. Lewis Cass Building, Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan 48909. APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE TO CIVIL SERVICE HEARINGS OFFICERS 161 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY School of Labor and Industrial Relations Office of the Director South Kedzie Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 August 21, 1978 M E M O R A N D U M To: All Hearings Division Hearing Officers Subject: Questionnaire to Hearing Officers As part of the IPA study of the Michigan State Civil Service Grievance and Appeals Procedure, we are collecting data on the operation of the Hearings Division. In order to complete this part of the study, we need to collect from Hearing Officers the information requested in the attached questionnaire. The Director of the Hearings Division has authorized us to request your cooperation in completing this questionnaire. We would appreciate your cooperation by completing and returning this questionnaire to us by September 1, 1978. With many thanks, Kent Murrmann Research Assistant Jack Stieber, Professor and Project Director KM/sk Attachment 162 HEARING OFFICER SURVEY Part I : Biographical Information 1. What is your year of birth? 2, How many years of schooling have you had? Years High School College Graduate or Professional 3. What degrees do you hold? (Check) None Bachelor's Master's LL.B. LL.M. J.D. Ph.D. Other, specify 4. What was your major field of concentration in college? Your minor field? 5. What type, if any, graduate or professional study did you do? 6. Have you ever worked for a union, an employee association , or the labor movement on a: full time basis? Yes No part time basis? Yes No If the answer is "yes," give Type of work you performed: ___________________________________ The years of this experience: From19 to 19___ The name of this organization: ________________________________ Have you ever worked for a private sector employer or employer association in labor relations or personnel work on a: full time basis?Yes ____ N o __ part time basis?Yes No __ If the answer is "yes," give The years of this experience: From 19___ to 19___ Other than for the State of Michigan, have you ever worked for the government (federal, state, county or municipal) in a labor relations or personnel position on a: full time basis?Yes N o __ part time basis?Yes N o __ If the answer is "yes," give The years of this experience: Were you ever employed by the From 19___ to 19___ Stateof Michigan prior to your employment in the Hearings Division? Yes No_ If yes, please give: - the department(s) you were employed in: - the position(s) and classification(s) you were employed in: 164 - the type(s) of work you performed in this (these) position(s): - the years of this experience: 10. From 19___ to 19___ For what period of time have you been employed as a Hearing Officer with the Hearings Division? From to present (month, year) How many grievance decisions have you issued? 11. __________ What experience and education, other than that reported in your responses to the above questions, do you possess that strengthens your qualifications as a Hearing Officer? RESPONSES OF FULL-TIME AND AD HOC HEARING OFFICERS Part II: Hypothetical Questions There are no right or wrong answers to the following questions. Rather, the questions are designed to obtain an expression of your views concerning the role of a Hearing Officer. Your responses should' be based on your independent judgement of the matters addressed. The response of individual hearing officers will be confidential. Only the aggregated responses of all the respondents will be analyzed and reported. Does a Hearing Officer have a duty to disclose to the Director of the Hearings Division at any stage of the adjudication process: 1. That three years ago he/she received a loan of $100 from one of the parties which he/she has since repaid? (5) Yes (7) Yes FT * Full Time Hearing Officer AH = Ad Hoc Hearing Officer (1) No (0) No (3) It Depends (2) It Depends 165 2. That three years ago he/she received a loan of $100 from a spouse (or other relative) of one of the parties which he/she has since repaid? FT AH 3. (1) It Depends (1) It Depends (0) Yes (0) Yes (7) No (7) No (2) It Depends (2) It Depends (0) Yes (0) Yes (7) No (9) No (2) It Depends (0) It Depends (2) Yes (0) Yes (7) No (8) No (0) It Depends (1) It Depends That the department representative at the hearing once was enrolled in an industrial relations course given by the Hearing Officer in a program of a university? FT AH 8. (0) No (0) No That the department involved in the hearing sent representatives to a university to attend a management training program for various state agencies, and the Hearing Officer teaches a course in industrial relations in that program? FT AH 7. (8) Yes (8) Yes That last year he/she participated in a conference on how to be more effective in grievance arbitration, and the conference included a representative of a union now party to a grievance he/she is assignedto decide? FT AH 6. (2) It Depends (2) It Depends That last year he/she received a free lunch when he/she gave a general talk to a personnel association meeting which included some representation of the department that is a party to a grievance he/she is assigned to decide? FT AH 5. (2) No (0) No That he/she has received a loan from one of the parties that has not yet been repaid? FT AH 4. (5) Yes (7) Yes (2) Yes (3) Yes (7) No (4) No (0) It Depends (2) It Depends That a representative of one of the parties is a former degreeseeking student of the Hearing Officer? FT AH (1) Yes (3) Yes (7) No (5) No (1) It Depends (1) It Depends 166 9. That a representative of one of the parties is a former studentresearch assistant for the Hearing Officer? FT AH (4) Yes (5) Yes (4) No (2) No (1) It Depends (2) It Depends 10. That the union or department representative has, at the Hearing Officer's request, given a talk to the Hearing Officer’s class at a university? FT AH (1) (4) Yes Yes (7) No (4) No (1) It Depends (1) It Depends 11. That the Hearing Officer once attended a talk given by a repre­ sentative of one of the parties on the subject "grievance procedures and arbitration"? FT AH (0) (0) Yes Yes (9) No (9) No (0) It Depends (0) It Depends 12. That the Hearing Officer's spouse is employed in the personnel division of the department involved in the hearing? FT AH 13. (2) It Depends (1) It Depends (2) (6) Yes Yes (5) No (2) No (2) It Depends (1) It Depends (5) (2) Yes Yes (3) No (5) No (1) It Depends (2) It Depends That the Hearing Officer has discovered during the hearing that the union representative has a reservation on the same flight to return to their home city after the hearing and that the union representative plans to sit with the Hearing Officer? FT AH 16. (0) No (1) No That the Hearing Officer found himself sitting beside the union representative for the next day's hearing on the plane trip to the hearing location in the Upper Peninsula? FT AH 15. Yes Yes That the Hearing Officer's spouse is employed by a department Involved in a hearing in a position totally unrelated to the grievance? FT AH 14. (7) (7) (4) (1) Yes Yes (4) No (5) No (1) It Depends (3) It Depends That the department representative took the Hearing Officer out to dinner at the last meeting of a national organization to which they both belonged? FT AH (2) (2) Yes Yes (5) No (4) No (2) It Depends (3) It Depends 167 17. That the union representative happened to see the Hearing Officer at a cocktail lounge the night before the hearing and offered him a drink? FT AH (2) Yes (0) Yes (4) (9) No No (3) It Depends (0) It Depends 18. That upon the Hearing Officer's asking the parties in a joint letter how to reach the Upper Peninsula hearing location, the union has arranged for its representative to drive the Hearing Officer from the airport to the hearing location? FT AH 19. (3) (3) No No (1) It Depends (1) It Depends That the Hearing Officer has played poker or golf with the union representative on prior occasions? FT AH 20. (5) Yes (5) Yes (3) Yes (3) Yes (3) (5) No No (3) It Depends (1) It Depends That the department representative and the Hearing Officer belong to the same neighborhood civic association? FT AH (5) Yes (4) Yes (2) (5) No No (2) It Depends (0) It Depends 21. That a neighbor-friend of the Hearing Officer is employed in a management capacity in the department involved in the grievance (but in a capacity unrelated to the case being heard)? FT AH 22. (6) (6) No No (2) It Depends (1) It Depends That the union representative has presented prior grievance cases to the Hearing Officer (but the department representative has not)? FT AH 23. (1) Yes (2) Yes (0) Yes (0) Yes (9) (9) No No (0) It Depends (0) It Depends That, for a short period of time, as a college student several years ago, the Hearing Officer was an inactive member of a local chapter affiliated with the employee organization? FT AH (2) Yes (3) Yes (5) (5) No No (2) It Depends (1) It Depends 168 24. That a representative of a party, after the hearing but before issuance of the decision, has advised the Hearing Officer that "this is a very important case which we cannot afford to lose"? FT AH 25. (2) It Depends (3) It Depends (0) (1) Yes Yes (8) (7) No No (1) It Depends (1) It Depends (8) (7) Yes Yes (0) No (0) No (1) It (2) It Depends Depends (5) (3) Yes Yes (2) No (0) No (2) It (6) It Depends Depends That after the hearing the union representative who presented the union's case indicates that he/she has done his/her best in pre­ sending the case, but that he/she will understand if the Hearing Officer rules in favor of the department? FT AH 29. No No That a union representative has advised the Hearing Officer that he agrees with the department's position (but that the hearing must be held for "political" reasons), but the union representagive does not ask the Hearing Officer to agree in advance of the hearing to adopt the department position? FT AH 28. (2) (3) That a union representative has advised the Hearing Officer that he agrees with the department's position (but that the hearing must be held for "political" reasons), and that the union representative has asked the Hearing Officer to agree in advance of the hearing to adopt the department position? FT AH 27. Yes Yes That the Hearing Officer recognizes one of the representatives of the parties as a fellow member of a professional association to which he belongs? FT AH 26. (5) (3) (0) (1) Yes Yes (8) No (5) No (1) It (3) It Depends Depends That the Hearing Officer and the department grievance representa­ tive worked together for several years in the same section of a state department? FT AH (6) Yes (5) Yes (1) No (3) No (2) It Depends (1) It Depends 169 30. That the Hearing Officer and the department grievance representa­ tive became good friends while they were fellow employees of the same state department and that their families occasionally get together on a social basis? FT AH (7) Yes (6) Yes (2) (2) No No (0) It Depends (1) It Depends APPENDIX E CIVIL SERVICE HEARING OFFICER AND ARBITRATION DECISIONS 170 TABLE 23 GRIEVANCES DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING AT CIVIL SERVICE STEP 4 Basis for Dismissal Frequency % Does not comply with the definition of a grievance. 90 20.4 Untimely or lack of proper procedure at step 1, 2, or 3. 68 15.4 Action complained of is within employer rights specified in Employment Relations Policy Section 4.1. (i.e., employer rights to appoint, transfer, and set rates of pay.) 51 11.6 The case should be processed as a redetermination in the classifications division. 48 10.9 The grievance is not grievable above step 3 of the procedure. (Refer to Grievance Procedure Section 6, "Limitations on Grievances".) 38 8.6 Grievance remanded for reconsideration at step 3 because existing policy or prior Hearing Officer decision is determinative of the issues raised. 37 8.4 Withdrawn by the grievant. 32 7.2 Untimely or improper procedure at step 4. 27 6.1 Settled mutually by the parties. 24 5.4 The case should be processed as a redetermination in the selection bureau. 12 2.7 The case should be resolved through the meet and confer process. 8 1.8 The case should be appealed to a Technical Hearing Officer in the Hearing Division. 3 .7 The case should be appealed to the State Personnel Director. 3 .7 441 100.0 Total Cases S o u rc e : H e a rin g s D iv is io n r e c o r d s on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d is m is s a ls . 171 TABLE 24 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY DEPARTMENT, CY* 1973-1977 Department 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total/Average Agriculture F R 1 1.2 2 2.6 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 1.3 5 1.3 Attorney General F R 1 4.9 0 0.0 1 3.5 1 3.2 0 0.0 3 2.3 Civil Rights F R 4 19.9 1 4.0 0 0.0 5 18.8 3 10.8 13 10.7 Civil Service F R 4 14.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 12.8 2 6.0 10 6.6 Commerce F R 5 3.4 5 3.4 3 1.9 3 1.8 12 7.2 28 3.5 Corrections F R 27 11.2 18 7.0 34 12.4 62 20.5 50 13.1 191 12.8 Education F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.3 3 1.3 3 1.3 9 0.8 Labor F R 10 2.5 7 1.6 13 2.5 23 4.1 28 5.1 81 3.2 Auditor General F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Licensing & Regulation F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 10.2 1 4.9 1 4.4 4 3.9 Management & Budget F R 2 6 4.1 12 7.5 9 5.2 7 3.9 36 4.1 Mental Health F R 68 4.8 117 140 91 163 6.6 8.7 10.6 11.5 579 8.4 Military Affairs F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.8 1 3.0 2 1.2 Natural Resources F R 7 2.8 1 0.4 2 0.6 0 0.0 3 0.9 13 0.8 0.0 172 TABLE 24 (cont.) DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY DEPARTMENT, CY* 1973-1977 Department 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total/Average Public Health F R 0 0.0 2 1.2 1 0.6 3 1.7 5 2.8 11 1.3 Social Services F R 23 2.3 39 3.7 31 2.7 45 3.7 56 3.9 194 3.3 State F R 6 . 3.1 4 2.0 6 3.1 3 1.5 6 2.7 25 2.5 State Highways F R 8 1.8 12 2.6 11 2.4 11 2.4 10 2.3 52 2.3 State Police F R 2 0.7 21 7.7 5 1.8 16 5.7 20 7.1 64 4.6 Treasury F R 0 0.0 2 1.2 0 0.0 2 1.3 0 0.0 4 0.5 Totals 168 211 242 333 371 1325 F = Frequency of step 4 decisions. R = Number of decisions per 1000 employees. Note: Source: Weighted averages are not used because they do not differ significantly from the unweighted averages reported here. Calculated from data obtained from Michigan Department of Civil Service, Hearings Division records of decisions issued. Employment data reported in Appendix F, Table 50. 173 TABLE 25 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY REPRESENTATION, 1973-1977 Representation 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 74 100 3.8 5.0 Total/Average M.S.E.A. F R 39 2.2 53 2.9 93 4.4 359 3.7 A.F.S.C.M.E. F R 75 10.8 84 104 107 149 11.6 14.2 16.4 25.8 519 15.8 31M F R 4 3.5 3 2.6 7 5.1 9 5.8 10 6.9 33 4.8 Troopers F R 0 0.0 5 3.9 0 0.0 1 0.8 1 0.7 7 1.1 Corrections Organization F R 0 0.0 2 2.7 6 8.2 21 22.6 13 13.4 42 9.4 Highway Engineers F R 1 2.5 0 0.0 1 2.5 1 2.5 0 0.0 3 1.5 Welfare Employees Union F R 4 5.2 16 18.4 6 6.8 12 1.7 14 13.1 52 11.0 Other Employee Organizations F R 6 0.0 4 0.0 8 0.0 6 0.0 5 0.0 29 0.0 Private Attorney F R 14 0.0 13 0.0 16 0.0 19 0.0 26 0.0 88 0.0 Self Representation F R 14 0.0 19 0.0 9 0.0 19 0.0 18 0.0 79 0.0 Fellow Employee F R 7 0.0 11 0.0 9 0.0 26 0.0 23 0.0 76 0.0 No Appearance Recorded F R 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.0 14 0.0 22 0.0 Totals 165 211 240 327 366 1309 Membership data are reported in Appendix F, Table 51. Source: Note: Calculated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. Weighted averages are not used because they do not differ significantly from the unweighted averages reported here. 174 TABLE 26 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY CLASSIFICATION LEVEL, 1973-1977 Classification Level 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total/Average 1 F R 9 3.0 8 3.0 4 1.9 0 0.0 2 0.7 23 1.8 2 F R 2 5.3 2 3.4 2 1.8 3 0.9 5 1.1 14 2.5 3 F R 15 3.0 17 3.5 32 6.5 38 7.7 64 10.0 166 6.1 4 F R 17 2.1 38 4.5 52 5.7 77 8.1 67 6.4 251 5.4 5 F R 28 3.6 25 3.1 19 2.3 30 3.9 23 3.0 125 3.2 6 F R 12 5.2 14 4.5 12 3.3 27 7.6 59 17.2 124 7.6 7 F R 12 1.7 29 4.1 30 4.4 44 6.1 30 4.7 145 4.2 8 F R 3 1.8 2 0.9 11 3.6 19 5.8 29 8.4 64 4.1 9 F R 14 2.2 24 3.8 19 2.9 24 4.1 24 4.7 105 3.5 10 F R 11 3.5 7 2.2 15 4.7 9 3.1 23 8.0 65 4.3 11 F R 14 4.8 24 7.6 8 2.3 29 8.5 18 5.5 93 5.7 12 F R 3 2.0 2 1.2 6 3.3 9 4.7 4 1.9 24 2.6 13 F R 1 0.9 3 2.4 3 2.2 4 2.8 6 4.1 17 2.5 175 TABLE 26(cont.) DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY CLASSIFICATION LEVEL, 1973-1977 Classification Level 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total/Average 14 F R 1 1.8 1 1.8 1 1.8 4 6 .6 3 4.6 10 3.3 15 F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.8 1 1.7 1 1.8 3 1.1 16 F R 0 0.0 2 5.2 2 5.0 4 9.8 0 0.0 8 4.0 17 F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.3 2 9.4 3 2.5 18 F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F R 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 F R 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 20 21 F R Totals Source: Note: 1973 0 0.0 142 198 217 323 360 Calculated from employment data reported In 1240 Appendix F, Table 51. Weighted averages are not used because they do not differ significantly from the unweighted averages reported here. TABLE 27 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 DESCISIONS BY TYPE OF EMPLOYER ACTION GRIEVED, 1973-1977 A c tio n G rie v e d * 1974 1973 f % f 1975 % f 1976 1977 % f % f T o ta ls % f % D is c h a rg e 22 13.2 29 13.7 37 15.4 58 17.4 70 18.9 216 16.3 A ll O th e r D i s c i p l i n e 20 12.0 23 10.9 45 18.7 65 19.5 54 14.6 207 15.6 A p p o in tm e n t 22 13.2 26 12.3 25 10.4 40 12.0 57 15.4 170 12.8 A s s ig n m e n t 21 12.6 42 19.9 33 13.7 42 12.6 44 11.9 182 13.8 3 1.8 3 1.4 1 0.4 7 2.1 12 3.2 26 2.0 T e rm in a tio n 14 8.4 12 5.7 8 3.3 7 2.1 12 3.2 53 4.0 L eave 24 14.4 26 12.3 24 10.0 30 9.0 44 11.9 146 11.2 C o m p e n s a tio n 18 10.8 29 13.7 42 17.4 57 17.1 53 14.3 199 15.0 8 4.8 5 2.4 8 3.3 14 4.2 9 2.4 44 3.3 15 9.0 16 7.6 18 7.5 13 3.9 16 4.3 78 5.9 167 100.0 211 100.0 241 100.0 333 100.0 371 100.0 1323 100.0 L ay O ff E v a lu a tio n O rd e r R e g u la tio n T o ta ls *Refer to Appendix H for a definition of terms. Source: Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. TABLE 28 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 GRIEVANCES BY TYPE OF DECISION, 1973-1977 Decision 1974 1973 f 1975 1977 1976 f % 25 14.9 54 25.6 46 19.0 53 15.9 77 20.8 255 19.2 4 2.4 3 1.4 12 5.0 15 4.5 5 1.3 39 2.9 Modified 23 13.7 22 10.4 19 7.9 26 7.8 33 8.9 123 9.3 Denied 80 47.6 118 55.9 152 62.8 233 70.0 230 62.0 813 61.4 Rewarded 5 3.0 9 4.3 7 2.9 0 0.0 9 2.4 30 2.3 Settled 9 5.4 2 0.9 1 0.4 2 0.6 15 4.0 29 2.2 22 13.1 3 1.4 5 2.1 4 1.2 2 0.5 36 2.7 168 100.0 211 100.0 242 100.0 333 100.0 371 100.0 1325 100.0 Sustained Partly Sustained Withdrawn Totals Source: % f % f % f Totals % Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. f % TABLE 29 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 HEARINGS BY TIME ELAPSED FROM DATE OF APPEAL TO DATE OF HEARING, 1973-1977* Weeks Elapsed 1974 1973 1975 1976 1977 Totals f % f % f % f % f % f */ 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.3 1 0.4 3 2 6.3 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 1.6 2 2.5 6 2.3 4 2 6.3 3 9.4 0 0.0 7 11.1 4 5.1 16 6.3 5 4 12.5 9 28.1 8 16.0 10 15.9 6 7.6 37 14.5 6 5 15.6 6 18.8 6 12.0 7 11.1 12 15.2 36 14.1 7 5 15.6 4 12.5 6 12.0 6 9.5 12 15.2 33 12.9 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 12.0 7 11.1 11 13.9 24 9.4 9 3 9.4 1 3.1 2 4.0 3 4.8 8 10.1 17 6.6 10 2 6.3 0 0.0 3 6.0 2 3.2 5 6.3 12 4.7 11 0 0.0 1 3.1 2 4.0 3 4.8 3 3.8 9 3.5 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0 4 6.3 3 3.8 8 3.1 13 1 3.1 1 3.1 3 6.0 2 3.2 2 2.5 9 3.5 14 2 6.3 3 9.4 3 6.0 1 1.6 2 2.5 11 4.3 15 1 3.1 0 0.0 1 2.0 2 3.2 1 1.3 5 2.0 16 1 3.1 0 0.0 1 2.0 3 4.8 0 0.0 5 2.0 17 1 3.1 0 0.0 2 4.0 1 1.6 1 1.3 5 2.0 3 32 9.4 100.0 4 32 12.5 100.0 4 50 8.0 100.0 4 63 6.3 100.0 6 79 7.6 100.0 21 256 8.2 100.0 18+ Totals *Estiraates based on a 20% representative sample. Source: Calculated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. TABLE 30 DISTRIBUTION OF STEP 4 DECISIONS BY TIME ELASPSED FROM DATE OF HEARING TO DATE OF DECISION, 1973-1977 1973 Weeks Elapsed 1974 1975 1976 1977 Totals f % f % f % f fn f % f % 1 3 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.1 7 0.5 2 17 10.4 9 4.3 5 2.1 23 6.9 17 4.6 71 5.4 3 34 20.7 36 17.1 35 14.7 42 12.7 19 5.2 166 12.7 4 26 15.9 54 25.6 26 10.9 51 15.4 30 8.2 187 14.3 5 22 13.4 45 21.3 19 8.0 27 8.1 41 11.2 154 11.7 6 16 9.8 32 15.2 12 5.0 13 3.9 32 8.7 105 8.0 7 13 7.9 7 3.3 23 9.7 13 3.9 35 9.6 91 6.9 8 13 7.9 6 2.8 24 10.1 28 8.4 36 9.8 107 8.2 9 1 0.6 9 4.3 26 10.9 26 7.8 44 12.0 106 8.1 10 4 2.4 8 3.8 19 8.0 25 7.5 39 10.7 95 7.2 11 3 1.8 1 0.5 17 7.1 17 5.1 25 6.8 63 4.8 12 1 0.6 2 0.9 7 2.9 17 5.1 14 3.8 41 3.1 13 2 1.2 0 0.0 9 3.8 10 3.0 13 3.6 34 2.6 14 2 1.2 0 0.0 2 0.8 16 4.8 4 1.1 24 1.8 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.8 8 2.4 10 2.7 20 1.5 16 3 1.8 0 0.0 6 2.5 3 0.9 1 0.3 13 1.0 17 1 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.4 5 1.5 0 0.0 7 0.5 3 164 1.8 100.0 2 0.9 5 2.1 8 2.4 2 0.5 20 1.5 211 100.0 238 100.0 332 100.0 366 100.0 1311 100.0 18+ Totals Source: Calculated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. 180 TABLE 31 STEP 4 DECISIONS APPEALED AND NOT APPEALED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 1973-1977 Action After Step 4 Hearing Officer Decision Year Appealed To Commission f Not Appealed To Commission f % % Totals f % 1973 32 19.0 136 81.0 168 100.0 1974 57 27.0 154 73.0 211 100.0 1975 62 25.6 180 74.4 242 100.0 1976 106 31.8 227 68.2 333 100.0 1977 98 26.4 273 73.6 371 100.0 355 26.8 970 73.2 1325 100.0 Totals Source: Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records on Commission decisions. 181 TABLE 32 STEP 4 DECISIONS APPEALED AND NOT APPEALED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 1977 Step 4 Decision Not Appealed f Sustained Partly Sustained Modified Denied Remanded Settled Withdrawn Totals Source: % Appealed f % 58 75.3 19 24.7 4 80.0 1 20.0 27 81.8 6 18.2 158 68.7 72 31.3 9 100.0 0 0.0 15 100.0 0 0.0 2 100.0 0 0.0 273 73.6 98 26.4 Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of Commission decisions. TABLE 33 COMMISSION DECISIONS ON CASES APPEALED BY LEAVE, 1973-1977 1973 1974 1976 1975 1977 Totals Commission Decisions f % f % f % f % f % f % Leave Granted Grievance Denied 5 31.2 1 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 2.5 Grievance Sustained 1 6.2 0 0.0 4 8.8 6 7.4 3 2.4 13 5.3 Grievance Remanded 3 18.8 1 5.5 4 8.8 4 4.9 7 9.4 20 8.2 7 43.7 16 88.8 37 82.2 71 87.6 75 88.2 206 84.1 16 100.0 18 100.0 45 100.0 81 100.0 85 100.0 245 100.0 Leave Denied Totals Source: Note: Hearings Division Records on Commission Decisions. The records indicate that during the period of 1973-1977 the Civil Service Commission granted leave to appeal in 39 cases: The Commission affirmed the Hearings Officer's decision to sustain the grievance in 6 cases, to deny the grievance in 6 cases, and to modify the grievance in 2 cases; the Commission overruled the Hearings Officer's decision to deny the grievance in 6 cases; the Commission remanded the Hearings Officer's decision to sustain the grievance in 5 cases, to deny the grievance in 10 cases, and to modify the grievance in 4 cases. TABLE 34 COMMISSION DECISIONS ON CASES APPEALED BY RIGHT, 1973-1977 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Totals Commission Decisions f % f % f % f % f % f % 14 87.6 23 60.0 10 58.8 17 68.0 12 92.3 76 69.1 Grievance Sustained 1 6.2 15 38.5 3 17.6 4 16.0 0 0.0 23 20.9 Grievance Remanded 0 0.0 1 2.5 2 11.7 3 12.0 1 7.7 7 6.4 Grievance Settled 1 6.2 0 0.0 2 11.7 1 4.0 0 0.0 4 3.6 16 100.0 39 100.0 17 100.0 25 100.0 13 100.0 110 100.0 Grievance Denied Totals Source: Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records on Commission decisions. 184 TABLE 35 HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS REGULAR VS. EXPEDITED HEARINGS, 1977 Regular Expedited Totals Decision f Sustained % f % f % 44 20.9 33 20.6 77 20.8 3 1.4 2 1.2 5 1.3 27 12.8 6 3.7 33 8.9 127 60.2 103 64.4 230 62.0 Remanded 1 0.5 8 5.0 9 2.4 Withdrawn 0 0.0 2 1.2 2 0.5 Settled 9 4.3 6 3.7 15 4.0 211 100.0 160 100.0 371 100.0 Partly Sustained Modified Denied Totals Source: Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records on Commission decisions. TABLE 36 CASES DECIDED BY REGULAR AND AD HOC HEARING OFFICERS, 1973-77 1974 Hearing Officer Type f Ad Hoc 55 32.7 116 55.0 27 Regular 113 67.3 95 45.0 TOTALS 168 100.0 211 100.0 Source: 1973 % f 1975 % 1976 1977 Totals f % f % 11.2 18 5.4 31 215 88.8 315 94.6 242 100.0 333 100.0 f % f % 8.4 247 18.6 340 91.6 1078 81.4 371 100.0 1325 100.0 Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. 186 TABLE 37 STEP 4 HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS ON DISCHARGE CASES, AD HOC VS. FULL TIME HEARING OFFICERS , 1973-1977 Regular AD HOC Totals Step 4 Decisions f % f % f % 26 16.9 11 17.2 37 17.0 6 3.9 3 4.7 9 4.1 Modified 25 16.2 16 25.0 41 18.8 Denied 92 59.7 29 45.3 121 55.5 Remanded 1 0.6 3 4.7 4 1.8 Settled 2 1.3 1 1.6 3 1.4 Withdrawn 2 1.3 1 1.6 3 1.4 154 100.0 64 100.0 218 100.0 Sustained Partly Sustained Totals Source: Tabulated from data obtained from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. 187 TABLE 38 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DECISIONS ON DISCHARGE GRIEVANCES FULL TIME VS. AD HOC HEARINGS OFFICERS, 1973-1977 Regular Total Ad Hoc commission decision f * f % f % Cases Appealed by Leave 24 15.7 5 7.8 29 13.4 Grievance Upheld 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.5 Grievance Remanded 5 3.3 1 1.6 6 2.8 22 14.4 19 29.7 41 18.9 Grievance Sustained 6 3.9 6 9.4 12 5.5 Grievance Remanded 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.5 Grievance Settled 2 1.3 0 0.0 2 0.9 61 100.0 64 100.0 92 100.0 Leave Denied Cases Appealed by Right Grievance Denied Totals Source: Tabulated from Hearings Division records on commission decisions. 188 TABLE 39 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY ACTION GRIEVED, 1973-1977 ] 973-1977 Totals Action Grieved f Discipline (Other than Discharge) % 11 31.A Appointment 3 8.6 Assignment 8 22.8 Termination (Other than Discharge) 2 5.7 Leave 2 5.7 Compensation 7 20.0 Evaluation 1 2.8 Order Regulation 1 2,8 35 100.0 Totals Note: Source: Prior to May, 1978, discharge grievances were not appealable to arbitration. Starting in May, 1978, the Civil Service Commission allowed discharge grievances to be appealed to arbi­ tration. Tabulated from Arbitration Officer's records of decisions issued. 189 TABLE 40 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY DEPARTMENT INVOLVED, 1973-1977 1973-1977 Totals Department f % 1 2.8 17 48.5 Natural Resources 1 2.8 Public Health 1 2.8 Social Services 15 42.8 Totals 35 100.0 Labor Mental Health Source: Tabulated from Arbitration Officer's records of decisions issued. APPENDIX F DATA ON EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP 190 TABLE 41 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION, 1973-1977 1973-1977 Totals f A.F.S.C.M.E. % 19 54.3 1 2.8 Welfare Employees 15 42.8 Totals 35 100.0 31-M S ource: T a b u la te d from A r b i t r a t i o n of d e c is io n s issu e d . O f f i c e r ’s re c o rd s 191 TABLE 42 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANT, 1973-1977 1973-1977 Totals Classification Level f % 3 3 8.6 4 3 8.6 5 10 28.5 6 6 17.1 7 4 11.4 8 1 2.8 9 6 17.1 11 2 5.7 35 100.0 Totals Source: Tabulated from Arbitration Officer's records of decisions issued. 192 TABLE 43 ELAPSED TIME OF ARBITRATION HEARINGS AND DECISIONS, 1973-1977 Mean Number of Days from Date of Appeal to Date of Hearing: Minimum Days Recorded: 48.0 Maximum Days Recorded: 965.0 Mean Number of Days from Date of Hearing to Date of Decision:. Source: 164.2 70.2 Minimum Days Recorded: 12.0 Maximum Days Recorded: 167.0 Tabulated from Arbitration Officer’s records of decisions issued. 193 TABLE 44 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY DECISION, 1973-1977 1973-1977 Totals Decision f Sustained % 11 31.4 Partly Sustained 4 11.4 Modified 1 2.8 18 51.4 1 2.8 35 100.0 Denied Remanded Totals Source: Tabulated from Arbitration Officer’s records of decisions issued. 194 TABLE 45 DISTRIBUTION OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS BY COMMISSION APPEALS ACTIVITY, 1973-1977 1973-1977 Totals Action f Not Appealed % 28 80.0 5 14.4 Grievance Remanded 1 2.8 Grievance Sustained 1 2.8 35 100.0 Appealed by Leave: Leave Denied Leave Granted, Total Source: Tabulated from Arbitration Officer’s records of decisions issued. 195 TABLE 46 DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNICAL HEARINGS OFFICER DECISIONS BY ACTION APPEALED, 1975^-1978 1976 1975 T o ta ls 1977 D e c is io n A p p e a le d f % f % f % f % C la ssific a tio n 76 72.4 198 77.0 164 82.0 438 77.9 T e stin g 28 26.7 31 12.1 23 11.5 82 14.6 C o m p e n sa tio n 0 0.0 1 0.4 2 1.0 3 0.5 S e le c tio n 1 1.0 2 1.0 11 5.5 39 6.9 105 100.0 257 100.0 200 100.0 562 100.0 T o ta ls S ource: T a b u la te d from H e a r in g s D i v i s i o n reco rd s of d e c isio n s issu e d . 196 TABLE 47 TECHNICAL HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS, 1975-1977 Decision on Grievance 1975 f 1976 % f 1977 % f Totals % f % Sustained 18 17.1 43 16.7 36 18.1 97 17.3 Partly Sustained 10 9.5 32 12.5 10 5.0 52 9.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 2.5 5 0.9 63 60.0 165 64.2 137 68.8 365 65.1 Remanded 4 3.8 16 6.2 2 1.0 22 3.9 Settled 9 8.6 1 0.4 6 3.0 16 2.9 Withdrawn 1 1.0 0 0.0 3 1.5 4 0.7 105 100.0 257 100.0 199 100.0 561 100.0 Modified Denied Totals Source: Tabulated from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. 197 TABLE 48 TECHNICAL HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION, 1976-1977 1976 - 1977 Totals Commission Decision f % 55 91.7 Appeal Denied 1 1.7 Appeal Sustained 3 4.9 Appeal Settled 1 1.7 60 100.0 Leave to Appeal Denied Totals Source: Tabulated from Hearings Division records of decisions issued. APPENDIX F DATA ON EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP TABLE 49 AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT, 1973-1977 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 Agriculture 746 746 770 773 815 Attorney General 331 308 283 240 204 Civil Rights 278 266 260 249 236 Civil Service 332 312 308 302 281 Commerce 1670 1622 1587 1520 1462 Corrections 3829 3025 2733 2567 2407 Education 2345 2357 2380 2337 2172 Labor 5512 5676 5274 4369 3939 Auditor General 162 160 155 150 140 Licensing and Regulation 230 203 196 195 198 1772 1719 1598 1452 14194 13224 13500 13871 14062 331 354 342 303 302 3002 2772 3122 2578 2465 Department Management and Budget Mental Health Military Affairs Department of Natural Resources TABLE 49 (cont.) AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT, 1973-1977 D e p a rtm e n t 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 P u b lic H e a lth 1814 1746 1682 1597 1531 13124 12093 11419 10530 9888 S ta te 2200 2008 1956 1964 1950 S t a t e H ig h w a y s 4332 4650 4577 4526 4523 S ta te P o lic e 2818 2806 2821 2731 2598 T reasury 1633 1588 1597 1619 1597 S o c ia l S e rv ic e s Source: Averages estimated on the basis of data reported on Michigan Department of Civil Service Form CS-452,176, 1973-1977. TABLE 50 AVERAGE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP BY EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION, 1973-1977 Employee Organization 1976 1975 1974 1973 21104 20088 19356 18422 18064 A.F.S.C.M.E. 5765 6525 7309 7215 6970 31-M 1449 1540 1382 1175 1140 State Troopers 1398 1328 1315 1278 1155 Corrections Organization 972 929 730 734 723 Highway Engineers 384 395 400 406 403 Welfare Employees 1071 1029 886 868 774 M.S.E.A. Source: Averages estimated on the basis of membership data reported on Michigan Department of Civil Service Form CS-452,176, 1973-1977. 200 1977 201 TABLE 51 AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT BY CLASSIFICATION LEVEL, 1973-1977 Classification Level 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1 3052 1667 2086 2665 3028 2 4724 3312 1089 596 377 3 6383 4904 4906 4901 4928 4 10513 9563 9111 8434 8287 5 7714 7715 8274 8015 7820 6 3421 3570 3640 3097 2287 7 6324 7240 6752 7159 6976 8 3463 3264 3036 2320 1694 9 5099 5826 6543 6285 6232 10 2859 2945 3186 3233 3110 11 3275 3423 3442 3135 2894 12 2056 1918 1814 1639 1467 13 1452 1408 1348 1243 1147 14 658 603 568 546 557 15 549 579 559 537 482 16 351 406 398 388 376 17 213 300 315 299 280 18 98 120 118 109 104 19 50 72 70 72 78 20 16 16 16 14 12 21 15 29 32 33 34 Source: Calculated on the basis of monthly data reported in Michigan Department of Civil Service, Bureau of Planning and Research report 211, K-D10-0Q8P. APPENDIX G OCCUPATIONS AND SALARY RANGES OP STATE EMPLOYEES, 1978 202 TABLE 52 OCCUPATIONS AND SALARY RANGES OF STATE EMPLOYEES, 1978 CLASSIFICATION LEVEL TYPICAL OCCUPATION SALARY RANGE (Min, to Max.) 01, 01 Entry level clerical, unskilled labor, and domestic aids $ 6,400-$ll,100 03 Entry level skilled labor and resident institutional case staff, journey level domestic, clerical and unskilled labor $10,000-$12,400 04 Journey level resident institu­ tional case staff $10,000-$13,900 05 Senior level clerical, journey level paraprofessional, super­ visory domestics, highway technicians $10,900-$14,400 06 Supervisory clerical, paraprofes­ sional, and institutional resident case staff, journey level paraprofessionals $11,100-$15,100 07 Journey level skilled labor, para­ professional case workers in mental health and social services, supervisory clerical $12,100-$15,000 08 - 12 Professionals at the entry level through the senior level $12,700-$21,800 13 - 17 Middle level managers $18,500-$35,100 17 - 21 Top level management, staff physicians $28,700-$47,200 Source: Michigan Department of Civil Service, Classifications Bureau APPENDIX H INDEX OF PERSONNEL ACTIONS 203 INDEX OF HEARING OFFICER AND ARBITRATOR DECISIONS Personnel Action The specific Index terms Included In this category identify the nature of the personnel activity frame work in which the dispute arose. A. Discipline - Including dismissal. Corrective or penalty action for misconduct or performance failure. B. Appointment - Original entry appointment, promotion, demotion, and lateral transfer to a different class; also involves recall from layoff. C. Assignment - Assignment or reassignment to selection of specific duties within a class, and as between locations within a building or within the State; shift assignment, shift transfer; shift sched­ ule or rescheduling of a shift; overtime work. D. Layoff - All personnel transactions caused by position abolishment or reduction-in-force. E. Termination - Forced resignation, constructive quit, retirement, or termination by certification. F. Leave - Approval or disapproval of administrative leave, sick leave, annual leave, and other authorized leaves; also includes lost time, forced leave, return from leave, and denial of leave. G. Compensation - This includes regular and premium pay for services rendered, reimbursement for expenses, fringe benefits, and holidays. H. Evaluation - Service ratings. I. Order-Regulation - Other personnel instructions or regulations, approvals or disapprovals, given employee on various conditions of employment, including supplementary employment and political activity. S ource: D e p a rtm e n t o f C i v i l S e r v i c e , H e a rin g s D iv is io n . APPENDIX I COST SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 204 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY School of Labor and Industrial Relations Office of the Director South Kedzie Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 August 17, 1978 To: Department Personnel Directors Subject: Grievance Procedure Cost Survey As part of the IPA study of the civil service grievance procedure, we are estimating certain of the costs to the state of operating the procedure. In order to complete these estimates, we need the cost information requested in the attached questionnaire. We would appreciate your cooperation by completing the questionnaire and returning it to us by September 6 , 1978. With many thanks, Kent Murrmann Research Assistant Jack Stieber, Professor and Project Director KM/sk Attachment Please return completed questionnaire to: Kent Murrmann School of Labor and Industrial Relations 403 South Kedzie Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 205 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE COST SURVEY This questionnaire requests you to make estimates of the staff time, overhead costs, and administrative leave devoted by your department to the operation of the grievance procedure. Please base your esti­ mates on records or other types of objective data wherever feasible. Some of your estimates, however, may have to be based on the judgement of those personnel in your department that are most informed about the operation of the grievance procedure. For assistance in completing this questionnaire call Kent Murrmann at (517) 353-3908 or at 355-1800. I. The Cost of Staff Time To Your Department Please list in the space provided below: A. A. The individual clerical or administrative positions, located in the Department Personnel Division, in which the incumbent(s) spend(s) time on behalf of the department typing, investigating, analyzing, representing, traveling or other­ wise working on grievances at department step 3, and above (i.e., at Department step 3, Civil Service step 4, Civil Service step 5, and in Arbitration). B. The percentage of each incumbent's work time spent working on grievances at step 3 and above during the last twelve months.l C. The current annual salary of each incumbent (include longev­ ity bonus, if paid). Position Title B. Percentage of Work Time Spent on Grievances at Step 3 and Above C. Annual Salary 1. 2. 3. Wherever in this questionnaire you are asked to base an estimate on the last twelve months experience, use the period from October 1, 1977 through September 30, 1978 as the basis for the estimate, and use your experience to date to project the estimate to cover the few weeks remaining until September 30, 1978. 206 II. The Cost of Overhead Items To Your Department What is the cost to your department during Fiscal Year 1978 of overhead items that are attributable to the operation of the grievance procedure? This cost area should include such items as office space, materials, supplies, copying service, insurance and retirement contributions, travel expenses, and contractual services. Calculate as follows: A. Identify the total cost of overhead items attributable to the Department Personnel Division as a whole. Data included in the Department Personnel Director's budget provides a good basis for estimating this cost. B. Identify the percentage of total staff time of the Personnel Division that is used to process grievances at step 3 and above. For example, if the Department Personnel Director's staff includes 15 full time people and three of these employees spend 50 percent of their work time processing grievances at the third step and above, then 1.5 out of 15 or 10 percent of the staff's time is devoted to working on grievances at those levels of the procedure. C. Attribute overhead cost to the grievance procedure in an amount equal in percentage to the percentage of total staff time devoted to the grievance procedure at step 3 and above. In the above example, 10 percent of staff time is devoted to processing grievances at step 3 and above; accordingly, 10 percent of the total overhead budget in that example would be attributable to the operation of the grievance procedure at step 3 and above. In your response to this question please provide to the extent feasible the following data: Overhead costs for the Department Personnel Division: Materials and Supplies, office space Copying Service Insurance Contributions Retirement Contributions Travel Expenses Others Total cost = __________________ Number of full time employees (or the equivalent) on the Department Personnel Director's staff =___________________ Percentage of total staff time devoted to handling grievances at step 3 and above (Base this estimate on your responses to item I.B. on page 1.) = __________________ Overhead cost attributable to the griev­ ance procedure at step 3 and above =___________________ 207 III. The Cost of Administrative Leave To Your Department A. During the last twelve months, what percentage of third step grievances involved a hearing, a conference, or other griev­ ance proceeding, attended by the opposing parties and necessary witnesses? _______________ Is your estimate based on: case records? ( ) or personal judgement? ( ) B. During the last twelve months, what was the average number of grievant witnesses per third step hearing (or other third step proceeding) that received Administrative Leave to attend the hearings? _______________ (Do not include the fellow employee representative in this estimate.) Is your estimate based on: case records? ( ) or personal judgement? ( ) C. During the last twelve months, what was the average number of department witnesses per third step hearing (or other third step proceeding) that received Administrative Leave to attend the hearings? _______________ (Do not include the department's third step representative in this estimate.) Is your estimate based on: case records? ( ) or personal judgement? ( ) D. On the basis of your experience for the last twelve months, please estimate and report in the space provided below the average number of hours of Administrative Leave received per hearing by grievants, fellow employee representatives, grievantrs witnesses, and department's witnesses for travel to and attendance at hearings at department step 3, civil service step 4, and in arbitration. Are your estimates based on: records of Administrative Leave? ( ) or personal judgement? ( ) Average No. of hours of Administrative Leave Received per Hearing during the Last 12 Months by: Grievants Fellow Employee Representatives Grievant's Witnesses Department's Witnesses Department step 3 Civil hearings (or other Service third step step 4 proceedings)_ hearings Arbitration hearings APPENDIX J AGGREGATE RESULTS OF DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION SURVEY 208 Michigan State University School of Labor and Industrial Relations Office of the Director South Kedzie Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 RE: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is part of a study of the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure being conducted by a research group at the Michigan State University School of Labor and Industrial Relations. The research is supported by a federal grant received under the authority of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. This questionnaire will be answered by officials of employee associa­ tions and unions that represent state civil service employees in Michigan and by Michigan state government department personnel dir­ ectors or their designated representatives. Your responses to the questionnaire will be held in strict confidence. No individuals other than the undersigned will have access to your responses. The completed questionnaires will be combined in aggregate form for analysis. After completion of the full study, a public report containing a summary of the aggregate data and statement of conclusions will be issued. Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire and returning it in the enclosed envelope will be greatly appreciated. With many thanks, Kent Murrmann Research Assistant Jack Stieber Professor and Project Director 209 The Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure is made up of a number of written provisions, grievance and appeal forms, and administrative practices. Listed on the following pages are references to a number of these provisions, forms, and practices. Please indicate your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each provi­ sion, form, or practice by putting a check in the space ( /) indicating whether you are: VS = very satisfied with it. FS ■ fairly satisfied with it. N = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with it. FD = fairly dissatisfied with it. VD m very dissatisfied with it. If you feel that you do not understand a provision, form or practice please do not indicate your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with it, but put a check in the space (/) indicating that you: NU = do not understand it. In addition, in several items you are asked to indicate a "Yes" or a "No" response rather than satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Please check only one space for each item in the questionnaire. Refer as needed to the attached copy of the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure. 210 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1 TO 12 Please keep in mind that the following questionnaire items refer to provisions, forms,or practices under the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure. NU 1. VS FS N FD VD The definition of a grievance under the Michigan procedure. ( 0) ( 3) ( 8) ( 2) ( 2) ( 5) Time limitations on filing and process­ ing grievances. ( 0) ( 4) (10) ( 3) ( 1) ( 2) 3. Shortened steps. ( 1) ( 4) ( 9) ( 4) ( 1) ( 1) 4. Waiver of steps. ( 0) ( 6) ( 7) ( 6) ( 0) ( 1) 5. The rights of grievants, grievant representatives, and grievant wit­ nesses to use administrative leave to attend hearings. (0) The rights of grievants to have state employees appear at grievance conferences and hearings as witnesses. ( 1) ( 2) (11) ( 5) ( 1) ( 0) 7. The procedure at department step 1 . ( 0) ( 4) (11) ( 0) ( 5) ( 0) 8. Grievance form CS-G1. ( 0) ( 2) ( 8) ( 3) ( 2) ( 5) 9. The procedure at department step 2 . ( 0) ( 5) (12) ( 2) ( 1) ( 0) 10. Grievance form CS-G2. ( 0) ( 3) ( 8) ( 2) ( 2) ( 5) 11. Should Michigan State Civil Service employees have the right to have a fellow employee representative at meetings with supervisors that may result in disciplinary action? 2. 6. Yes _5 No JL3 Undecided _1 12. Should the oral conference at department step 2 always be mandatory? Yes _7 No 21. Undecided __1 If no, should such conferences be manda­ tory if requested by either party? Yes 6 No 3 Undecided 1 (3 ) (11) (5) (0) ( 1) 211 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 1 TO 12 Please keep in mind that the following questionnaire items refer to provisions, forms, or practices under the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure. NU 1. VS FS N FD VD The definition of a grievance under the Michigan procedure. ( 0) ( 1) ( 3) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) Time limitations on filing and process­ ing grievances. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) ( 0) ( 2) 3. Shortened steps. ( 0) ( 0) ( 5) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) 4. Waiver of steps. ( 0) ( 0) ( 4) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) 5. The rights of grievants, grievant representatives, and grievant wit­ nesses to use administrative leave to attend hearings. ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) ( 0) ( 2) ( 1) The rights of grievants to have state employees appear at grievance conferences and hearings as witnesses. ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) 7. The procedure at department step 1. ( 0) ( 1) ( 3) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) 8. Grievance form CS-G1. ( 0) ( 0) ( 4) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) 9. The procedure at department step 2. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) 10. Grievance form CS-G2. ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) 11. Should Michigan State Civil Service employees have the right to have a fellow employee representative at meetings with supervisors that may result in disciplinary action? 2. 6. Yes _6 No __0 Undecided _0 12. Should the oral conference at department step 2 always be mandatory? Yes _3 No _2 Undecided _JL If no, should such conferences be manda­ tory if requested by either party? Yes 2 No 0 Undecided 0 212 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 13 TO 21 NU VS FS N FD VD ( 0) ( 8) ( 9) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) The procedure for filing redeterminatlon appeals to the Classification Bureau. ( 0) ( 2) ( 9) ( 5) ( 2) ( 2) The Classification Bureau appeal form CS-212T. ( 0) ( 1) ( 9) ( 6) ( 1) ( 3) The redetermination process in the Classification Bureau. ( 0) ( 1) { 7) ( 3) ( 3) ( 6) The procedure for filing redetermin­ ation appeals to the Selection Bureau. (1) (1) ( 8 ) (4) (4) ( 1) The Selection Bureau appeal form CS-409. ( 1) ( 1) ( 7) ( 6) ( 3) ( 1) The redetermination process in the Selection Bureau. (1) (0 ) ( 3) 13. The procedure at department step 3. 14. Should an oral conference always be mandatory for discharge and suspen­ sion grievances filed at department step 3? Yes _9 No _9 Undecided _ 1 If no, should such conferences be mandatory if requested by either party? Yes _6 No _3 Undecided _0 15. Do you agree with the provision that oral conferences for department step 3 grievances, other than dismissal and suspension grievances filed at step 3, may be held only at the discretion of the department? Yes No _6 Undecided _1 If no, should such conferences be mandatory if requested by either party? Yes _4 No _1 Undecided _1 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. (7) (5 ) ( 3 ) 213 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 13 TO 21 NU 13. The procedure at department step 3. 14. Should an oral conference always be mandatory for discharge and suspen­ sion grievances filed at department step 3? VS FS N FD ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) VD ( 2) Yes _4 No _2 Undecided __0 If no, should such conferences be mandatory if requested by either party? Yes _2 No _j0 Undecided _0 15. Do you agree with the provision that oral conferences for department step 3 grievances, other than dismissal and suspension grievances filed at step 3, may be held only at the discretion of the department? Yes _1 No _5 Undecided _0 If no, should such conferences be mandatory if requested by either party? Yes _3 No __0 Undecided _2_ 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The procedure for filing redetermin­ ation appeals to the Classification Bureau. ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 3) The Classification Bureau appeal form CS-212T. ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 3) The redetermination process in the Classification Bureau. ( 0) ( 0) < 1) ( 1) ( 0) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 4) 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 3) The procedure for filing redeterminatlon appeals to the Selection Bureau. The Selection Bureau appeal form CS-409. ( 0) ( The redetermination process in the Selection Bureau. (0 ) 1) ( (0) (1) (0) (1 ) ( 4) 214 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 22 TO 26 NU 22. - - - - 25. 26. N FD VD in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 2) ( 7) ( 3) ( 5) ( 3) in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 2) ( 6) ( 3) ( 6) ( 3) in terms of timeliness. ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) ( 4) ( 1) (12) in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 1) 1) ( 9) ( 4) ( 1) in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) ( 9) ( 6) ( 0) in terms of timeliness. ( 1) ( 0) ( 3) ( 7) ( 2) ( 6) 2) ( 8) ( 7) ( 2) ( 1) The adequacy of Selection Bureau redetermination decisions: - 24. FS The adequacy of Classification Bureau redetermination decisions: - 23. VS The procedure for appealing Selection and Classification Bureau redetermin­ ation decisions to the Hearings Division. The Hearings Division redetermination appeal form CS-403 ( ( 0)( 3) ( ( 2) ( 1) ( 7) ( 5) ( 4) ( 1) in terms of the completeness of the facts received by Technical Hearings Officers. ( 0) ( 4) ( 9) ( 3) ( 4) ( 0) in terms of the impartiality of the Technical Hearings Officers. (0 ) (2) The conduct of hearings by Technical Hearings Officers: - - (10) ( 4 ) (4 ) ( 0) 215 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 22 TO 26 NU 22. - - 26. FD VD ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 2 ) ( 2) in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 3) in tierms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) ( 2 ) in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) in terms of timeliness. ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 3) The adequacy of Selection Bureau redetermination decisions: - 25. N in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. - in terms of timeliness. 24. FS The adequacy of Classification Bureau redetermination decisions: - 23. VS The procedure for appealing Selection and Classification Bureau redetermin­ ation decisions to the Hearings Division.( 0) ( 0) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) The Hearings Division redetermlnatlon appeal form CS-403. ( 2) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) in terms of the completeness of the facts received by Technical Hearings Officers. ( 0) ( 1) ( l) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) in terms of the impartiality of the Technical Hearings Officers. ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 3) The conduct of hearings by Technical Hearings Officers: - - 216 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 27 TO 33 NU 27. 31. 32. 33. FD VD ( 0) ( 2) ( 9) ( 7) ( 2) ( 0) in terms of the logical consis­ tency among the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 2) ( 9) ( 5) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 6) ( 3) ( 5) ( 4) The procedure for appealing a grievance to Civil Service step 4. ( 0) ( 3) (11) ( 5) ( 1) ( 0) The limitations on what types of grievances may be appealed to the Hearings Division, Civil Service step 4. ( 1) ( 1) (10) ( 1) ( 3) ( 4) The criteria used by the Hearings Division to administratively dismiss a grievance without a Civil Service step 4 hearing. ( 2) ( 0) ( 9) ( 2) ( 5) ( 1) The procedure a grievant may use to appeal a Hearings Division decision to dismiss a grievance without a hearing. ( 1) ( 0) ( 6) ( 8) ( 3) ( 1) The procedure for conciliation of grievances appealed to step 4 Civil Service hearings. ( 3) ( 0) ( 5) ( 7) ( 3) ( 1) (1 ) (3) (15) ( 1 ) ( 0) ( 0) (4 ) (10) (2 ) (3) ( 0) - in terms oftimeliness. 30. N in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. - 29. FS The adequacy of Technical Hearings Officers written decisions: - 28. VS ( 4) The conduct of Civil Service step 4 hearings: - - in terms of the completeness of the records of facts established through the hearings. in terms of the impartiality of the Civil Service Hearings Officer. ( 1 ) 217 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 27 TO 33 NU 27. - - 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. FS N FD VD The adequacy of Technical Hearings Officers written decisions: - 28. VS in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) in terms of the logical consis­ tency among the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) in terms of timeliness. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) ( 0) ( 1) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) The procedure for appealing a grievance to Civil Service step 4. The limitations on what types of grievances may be appealed to the Hearings Division, Civil Service step 4. ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 4) The criteria used by the Hearings Division to administratively dismiss a grievance without a Civil Service step 4 hearing. ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 3) ( 3) The procedure a grievant may use to appeal a Hearings Division decision to dismiss a grievance without a hearing. ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 3) The procedure for conciliation of grievances appealed to step 4 Civil Service hearings. (0) (0 ) (3) (1) (1) ( 1) The conduct of Civil Service step 4 hearings: - - in terms of the completeness of the records of facts established through the hearings. ( 0) ( 1) ( 3) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) in terms of the impartiality of the Civil Service Hearings Officer, ( 0) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 3) ( 1) 218 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 34 TO 39 34. - - 36. 37. 38. in terms of the clearness of the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. (1) (4) in terms of the logical consis­ tency among the stated facts, con­ clusions, and supporting reasons. (1) (4 ) FS N FD VD in terms of timeliness. (12) ( 0 ) ( 1) ( 2) (10) (0 ) (3) ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) ( 4) ( 1) ( 7) ( 5) The availability of transcripts of Civil Service step 4 hearings. ( 2) ( 1) ( 7) ( 6) ( 2) ( 2) The procedure for appealing a grievance to arbitration. ( 2) ( 2) ( 6) ( 6) ( 1) ( 3) The conduct of pre-arbitration confer­ ences in terms of enhancing a fair and timely resolution of grievances. (4 ) (1) ( 1) in terms of the completeness of the records of facts established through the hearings. ( 5) ( 4) ( 6) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) in terms of the impartiality of the arbitrators. ( 5) ( 4) ( 6) ( 4) ( 0) ( 0) in terms of the clearness of the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 3) ( 4) ( 7) ( 5) ( 0) ( 0) in terms of the logical consis­ tency among the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting rea­ sons. ( 3) ( 3) ( 8) ( 5) ( 0) ( 0) in terras of timeliness. ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 7) ( 2) ( 1) (1 ) ( 8) (5) The conduct of arbitration hearings: - - 39. VS The adequacy of Civil Service step 4 Hearings Officers written decisions: - 35. NU The adequacy of the written decisions of arbitrators: - - 219 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 34 TO 39 NU 34. 38. VD ( 1) ( 1) in terms of the logical consis­ tency among the stated facts, con­ clusions, and supporting reasons. ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) in terms of timeliness. ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) ( 2) ( 1) The availability of transcripts of Civil Service step 4 hearings. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) The procedure for appealing a grievance to arbitration. ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) The conduct of pre-arbitration confer­ ences in terms of enhancing a fair and timely resolution of grievances. ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) ( 0) ( 1) ( 3) ( 1) ( 1) The conduct of arbitration hearings: - 39. FD ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) - 37. N in terms of the clearness of the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. - 36. FS The adequacy of Civil Service step 4 Hearings Officers written decisions: - 35. VS in terms of the completeness of the records of facts established through the hearings. ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) in terms of the impartiality of the arbitrators. ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) in terms of the clearness of the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) in terms of the logical consis­ tency among the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting rea­ sons. ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 0) ( 2) ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) The adequacy of the written decisions of arbitrators: - - - in terms of timeliness. 220 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 40 TO 46 40. Should dismissal grievances be appealable to arbitration? Yes _9 No _6 Undecided _5 41. Should Classification and Selection Bureau redetermination decisions be appealable to arbitration? Yes _3 No JL2 Undecided _5 42. About how many grievances have been appealed to arbitration during the last five years by employees in your department (if you are a department official) or by employees you repre­ sent (if you are an employee organi­ zation official)? None _9 7-9 43. 44. 45. 46. _1 1-3 _7 4-6 10-14 _0 1 15 or more _2 Note: This question was eliminated from the survey and replaced with addendum question 50. NU VS The procedure for appealing Technical Hearings Officers, Civil Service Hear­ ings Officers, and Arbitrator decisions to the Civil Service Commission. (0) (1) The criteria used by the Civil Service Commission in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal. ( 2) (0 ) All in all, does the Michigan Civil Service Commission provide an effective check on: - the clarity and logical consis­ tency of decisions that it denies leave to appeal? Yes 3 No 8 Undecided 9 FS N FD VD (11) (3 ) (2) (3) ( 6) (7) (2 ) (3) 221 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 40 TO 46 40. Should dismissal grievances be appealable to arbitration? Yes _6 No _0 Undecided _0 41. Should Classification and Selection Bureau redetermination decisions be appealable to arbitration? Yes _5^ No _0 Undecided _1 42. About how many grievances have been appealed to arbitration during the last five years by employees in your department (if you are a department official) or by employees you.repre­ sent (if you are an employee organi­ zation official)? None _1 7-9 43. _1 1-3 _2 4-6 10-14 _2 0 15 or more 0 Note: This question was eliminated from the survey and replaced with addendum question 50. NU 44. 45. 46. VS FS N FD VD The procedure for appealing Technical Hearings Officers, Civil Service Hear­ ings Officers, and Arbitrator decisions to the Civil Service Commission. ( 0) ( 1) ( 1) ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) The criteria used by the Civil Service Commission in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal. ( 0 ) (0 ) All in all, does the Michigan Civil Service Commission provide an effective check on: - the clarity and logical consis­ tency of decisions that it denies leave to appeal? Yes 0 No 5 Undecided 1 (0 ) (1 ) (3) (2 ) 222 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 46 (CONT.) TO 48 - the clarity and logical consistency of the decisions that it grants leave to appeal or reviews through appeal of right? Yes _4^ No __8 Undecided __8 - the fairness of decisions it denies leave to appeal? Yes _0 No _9 Undecided 11 - the fairness of decisions that it grants leave to appeal or reviews through appeal of right? Yes _5 No _5 Undecided 10 47. If there are any aspects of the Michigan grievance and appeals procedure that you consider to be important that have not been identified in the questionnaire, please use the space below to briefly state your views on them. Attach additional pages if needed to complete your response to this question. No comments were received in response to this question. NU 48. VS FS N FD VD All in all, how satisfied are you with the record of the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure in providing: - a fair resolution of redetermina­ tion appeals? ( 0) ( 0) (11) ( 4) ( 4) ( 1) a timely resolution of redeter­ mination appeals? ( 0) ( 0) ( 5) ( 3) ( 6) ( 6) - a fair resolution of grievances? ( 0) ( 1 )(16) (2 ) ( 0 )( 1 ) - a timely resolution of grievances? ( 0 ) ( l) ( 6 ) ( 3) ( 6) ( 4 ) - 223 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTIONS 46 (CONT.) TO 48 - the clarity and logical consistency of the decisions that it grants leave to appeal or reviews through appeal of right? Yes _0 No _4 Undecided __2 the fairness of decisions it denies leave to appeal? Yes _0 No _3 Undecided _3 - the fairness of decisions that it grants leave to appeal or reviews through appeal of right? Yes __0 No __3 Undecided __3 47. If there are any aspects of the Michigan grievance and appeals procedure that you consider to be important that have not been Identified in the questionnaire, please use the space below to briefly state your views on them. Attach additional pages if needed to complete your response to this question. No comments were received in response to this question. NU 48. VS FS N FD VD All in all, how satisfied are you with the record of the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure in providing: - - afair resolution of redetermina­ tion appeals? atimely resolution of redeter­ mination appeals? ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) ( 1) ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 2) ( 0) ( 3) - afair resolution of grievances? (0) (0) (3) (1 ) (0) (2) - atimely resolution of grievances? ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) 224 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 49 49. If your response to any of the questionnaire items indicated that you are fairly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the grievance and appeals procedure, please describe briefly below the reason for your dissatisfaction. Also, if you indicated that you do not understand an aspect of the procedure, please explain to the extent possible the reason why it is not understood. First list the number of the questionnaire item and then adjacent to each number provide a brief description of the reason for the dissatisfaction or lack of under­ standing. Please attach additional pages if needed to complete your response to this question. No comments were received in response to this question. 225 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RESPONSES FOR QUESTION 49 49. If your response to any of the questionnaire items indicated that you are fairly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the grievance and appeals procedure, please describe briefly below the reason for your dissatisfaction. Also, if you indicated that you do not understand an aspect of the procedure, please explain to the extent possible the reason why it is not understood. First list the number of the questionnaire item and then adjacent to each number provide a brief description of the reason for the dissatisfaction or lack of under­ standing. Please attach additional pages if needed to complete your response to this question. No comments were received in response to this question. 226 50. Under the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals pro­ cedure, grievances may be heard by: (1) Full-time Civil Service Hearing Officers at Civil Service step 4, or (2) Ad hoc Civil Service Hearing Officers at Civil Service step 4, or (3) Arbitrators in Grievance to Arbitration In the questions below, please briefly describe your preference for the use of full-time Civil Service Hearing Officers, ad hoc Civil Service Hearing Officers, or Arbitrators in terms of the performance each type provides on such factors as: - the timeliness of hearings and decisions - the fairness of hearings and decisions - the clearness and logical consistency of the facts, conclusions and supporting reasons stated in decisions acceptability to state employees or other grievance pro­ cedure constituents - or any other factors your consider important. For what reasons, or in what circumstances, if any, do you prefer the use of: (a) Full-time Civil Service Hearing Officers over ad hoc Civil Service Hearing Officers? (b) Full-time Civil Service Hearing Officers over Arbitrators? (c) Ad hoc Civil Service Hearing Officers over full-time Civil Service Hearing Officers? (d) Ad hoc Civil Service Hearing Officers over Arbitrators? 227 (e) Arbitrators over full-time Civil Service Hearing Officers? (f) Arbitrators over ad hoc Civil Service Hearing Officers? APPENDIX K CRITICAL COMMENTS PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NR. 49 BY DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVES 228 Note: 1. 2. 3. For all items in this appendix, (M) indicates a response by a department representative, and (U) indicates a response by an employee organization representative. The definition of a grievance under the Michigan procedure. - The definition is too broad. (M) - The term "personnel law" is too vague - meaningless. - The terms "past practice" and "conditions of employment" are too broad. (M) - The definition is unworkable, too broad. It should be limited to violation of specific rules and regulations. As it is it allows too many "meet and confer" issues to be grieved. (M) - The definition does not limit grievances to matters which the department has control over. Some matters are controll­ ed by the Department of Civil Service or the Department of Management and Budget (i.e., physical conditions). (M) (M) Time limitations on filing and processing grievances. - The time limits are too short for cases in which ence is required or may be beneficial. (M) a confer­ - The time limits are too tight to resolve some grievances at the lower steps. It takes longer to collect information and meet with the parties than is allowed. The parties must be in agreement to extend time limits and working out an ex­ tension may be impossible when there is a heavy case load and the parties are difficult to contact. (M) - The time limits are too tight for grievances involving field operations that are far flung. Shortened steps. - Although it is appropriate that grievances of dismissal, suspension, demotion and layoff be appealed directly to step three the procedure should be more explicit in stating that the grievance is appealable to step three, rather than 229 using the language "initially grievable at the next higher step of the grievance procedure above the official acting". Even in instances where the Director has personally taken an adverse action, a step three grievance conference is not only beneficial but is an essential part of the basic phil­ osophy of resolving grievances at the lowest possible level. In other types of grievances where action is taken by manage­ ment at the level higher than that of the immediate super­ visor, the grievance should be initiated at step two with the individual taking the action. It is just as absurd to bypass the individual taking the action in such situations as it would be to bypass the immediate supervisor when that indi­ vidual takes the action. (M) 4. Waiver of steps. - 5. Why should the department have to ask the State Personnel Director for permission to waive steps? It is in the employ­ ees interest to delay, and it is in the department's interest to expedite fourth step hearings to keep the witnesses intack - witnesses drift away. (M) The rights of grievant, grievant representatives, and grievant witnesses to use administrative leave to attend hearings. - Sometimes witnesses are superfluous - not material. However, once they attend the hearing they must be paid administra­ tive leave. The problem is insoluble because it is diffi­ cult to predict beforehand whether a witness will be needed. (M) 6. No comments were received. 7. The procedure at department step 1. - The first step is too informal, no record. This makes it difficult to prove timeliness issues and dates. (M) - Grievances should be formally initiated in writing at step one since the verbal nature of the current step one pro­ cedure causes considerable confusion. I would suspect that fully half of our grievances are improperly filed, accord­ ing to the procedure, since most individuals prepare a grievance form prior to notifying the first line supervisor of their intent to grieve. Frequently, the employee ex­ presses dissatisfaction with the action taken, but fails to explicitly state that a grievance is being filed, a dis­ cussion between the supervisor and the employee occurs, and the employee feels that step one has been complied with, while the supervisor had no knowledge or awareness that the 230 discussion was being considered a part o f t h e grievance procedure. We have seen absolutely no evidence that the verbal stage allows for the informal resolution of griev­ ances prior to committing the grievance to writing. (M) - While the procedure at step 1 indicates that an oral con­ ference is to be held prior to reducing anything to writing, I believe that the actual practice which has evolved is that supervisors are presented with written grievances at step 1 of the procedure. I feel that this oftentimes stands in the way of an effective resolution of the grievance. The oral conference requirement must be enforced and therefore should be more strongly stressed somehow through the griev­ ance procedure directions. (M) - The dissatisfaction is largely based on the confusing wording of the procedure, i.e., - Step 1 is oral discussion and supervisory response. - Step 2 is initiated by filing written grievance back with step 1 supervisor on CS-G1. Many grievants and supervisors are confused by the awkward­ ness of this requirement and don't know which step they're at. (M) 8. 9. Grievance form CS-G1. - Too confusing. Even those who use them regularly don't understand them. (M) - The instructions on the form are confusing. what step you are at. (M) - Too complex; more so than necessary. (M) - The grievant is not required to indicate the specific com­ plaint or the specific remedy sought. (M) You don't know The procedure at department step 2. - Nebulous. Who is the step 2 supervisor? This is difficult to pinpoint when there are several layers of management. (U) - Department step 2 isn't too bad as written — however, in practice, the "oral conference" is not always held, and the written answer is often delayed several days beyond the specified 10 weekdays. (U) - This is a conference, not an adversarial hearing. Therfore, 231 witnesses should not be needed. A problem solving approach should be emphasized at this step. (M) 10. Grievance £orm CS-G2. - Too confusing. Even those who use them regulary don’t under­ stand the Instructions. (M) - The grievant is not required to indicate the specific com­ plaint. (M) 11. Nocomments were received. 12. No comments were received. 13. The procedure at department step 3. - The step 3 conference is held only on dismissals and sus­ pensions. This should be changed to permit the grievant to demand such a conference on other grievances — £r the step should be eliminated. In any case, the time limits could stand tightening on cases where no conference is held. (U) 14. No comments were received. 15. No comments were received. 16. The procedure for filing redetermination appeals to the Classifi­ cation Bureau. - 17. This step is so formidable that many employees are overawed by it and will not file because of it. In particular, since Classification Bureau insists that percentages of time in particular duties has nothing to do with proper classifica­ tion, the section for breakdown by hours or percentage of the week spent in each duty is worthless. Filing should be simpler, with an oral review at each step. This would make it easier for many employees who are far more fluent verbally than in written form. (U) The Classification Bureau appeal form CS-212T. - In all cases, the employee doesn't receive enough data from Classification Bureau to be able to handle this form. Either the form should be simplified, or the determination report should be detailed. I ’d prefer the latter, and streamlined appeal process where the PD has already been filed by the employee. (U) - Poorly designed. comments. (M) Does not provide enough space for narrative 232 18. The redetermination process In the Classification Bureau. 21. The redetermination process in the Section Bureau, (These comments are representative of the views expressed about both 18 and 21.) - The process is bogged down, no due process, no expertice. (U) - The employee is limited to whatever is in writing, while there is clearly free interchange between Classification Bureau and management. The employee is handicapped by a lack of technical knowledge/jargon, and suffers. A review conference might make this more meaningful, by providing a freer interchange and giving the employee a chance to get his ideas out, even if he doesn't know the technicallan­ guage. (U) - Kangaroo Court - not impartial and too slow. (M) - This procedure is not predictual, not evidentary, not advers­ arial, not impartial, and it is self serving to the Department of Civil Service. (M) - Departments are not allowed access to Department of Civil Service files. (M) - I have no confidence in the reliability and consistency of the reviewers. (M) - The redetermination process is confusing and seldom seems to result in resolution of any problems. (M) - The problem is you go back to the same person who made the initial decision, and you have already made your best case to that person. (M) - The redetermination process which is utilized in the Classi­ fication Bureau is one which does not provide significant information to the appellant. Responses are often very limited and the process tends to be one of the auditor say­ ing "I’ve said it once and I'm saying it again" for the same rationale. (M) - The redetermination process lacks credibility since "Redeter­ mination Officer" is perceived by many as "rubber-stamping" the classifier's original determination. (M) - The process is confusing and seldom results in the resolution of any problems. (M) 233 19. 20. The procedure for filing redetermination appeals to the Selection Bureau. - This is kind of a sloppy set-up. There is no real formal notices of selection, and the CS-409 is unavailable in most cases. Information on the process is sketchy and pretty much hidden. For all practical purposes, there is no pro­ cedure. (U) - Written procedure provides for seeking redetermination on form CS-409. Selection Bureau practice is to not provide a form but to require a less formal inquiry. Practice and procedure should coincide. (M) The Selection Bureau appeal form CS-409. - Form CS-409 should be more available. one, and recall little about it. (U) I think I've seen - Narrative letter or memo form preferred to the required form. (M) 21. Consolidated with 18. 22. The adequacy of Classification Bureau redetermination decisons: in terms of clearness of stated fact, conclusions and support­ ing reasons. in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. in terms of timeliness. - Classification redeterminations are usually very short, lack­ ing detail, and a bit condescending. I can't say I've seen one which really covered "stated facts . . . and supporting reasons." They're not much better than Commission decisions. The timeliness is a funny thing — I've known the Classifica­ tion Bureau to put off one for over a year by claiming they were waiting for further information. The time limits don't begin until "after receipt of all information" and are undermined by an "if possible" tacked on. (U) - The auditors that write the decision tend to defend the original decision rather than take an objective fresh look at the case. (M) - Extremely long time delays, decisions poorly written and lack consistency. (M) 234 23. - Some are good, some are bad; it depends on the auditer you get. The decisions are too brief, not enough analysis. (M) - Again the justification and conclusions supporting the auditor's position are not clearly stated in most redeter­ mination decisions issued by the Classification Bureau. They tend to be very limited in their information justifying the original decision. The most significant criticism of the classification redetermination process is in the area of timeliness. We have been experiencing up to a year's delay in receiving redetermination decisions. This is totally unfair to the incumbent and to the department. (M) - Classification redeterminations are way untimely and lack consistency. (M) - Manyredeterminations involve an unconscionable amount of delay. I am aware of several cases still pending after 15 months. (M) The adequacy of Selection Bureau redetermination decisions: in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and support­ ing reasons. in terms of logical consistency among stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. in terms of timeliness. - I've never seen one. Are such things issued? (U) - We are still waiting for some cases filed as much as two years ago. (M) - Many of these decisions are very unclearly defined in terms of facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. Some of the decisions lack, logical consistency. (M) 24. No comments were received. 25. No comments were received. 26. The conduct of hearings byTechnicalHearings Officers: in terms of the completeness of the factsreceived Hearings Officers. by Technical in terms of the impartiality of the Technical Hearings Officers. 235 27. The adequacy of Technical Hearings Officers written decisions: in terms of clearness of stated facts, conclusions, and support­ ing reasons. in terms of the logical consistency among the stated facts, con­ clusions, and supporting reasons. in terms of timeliness. (The comments received applied to both 26 and 27.) - Technical hearings are limited to material covered in the documents mentioned above. No new subject matter may be introduced. Therefore, I feel, as explained above, that the employee is at a serious disadvantage. Also, the Classification Bureau is usually present as an advocate against the employee, along with the Department. I'm not impressed by the impartiality, if any, of Technical Hearings Officers. They obviously favor the bureaus, and seldom give favorable decisions for the employees. (U) - Like the hearing, the decision is a rehash of written mater­ ial already in the record. This is followed by a conclusion, period! They're quite slow about issuing decisions, as well. (U) - Technical Hearings Officers are typically former Classifi­ cation or Selection Bureau employees and are not always as impartial as they should be. (M) - The impartiality of the Technical Hearings Officers is suspect because most are former employees of the bureau involved in the hearing process. (M) - These decisions are poorly reasoned normally. Exceptional cases (often involving group appeals with appellants repre­ sented by legal councel) may be assigned to an ad hoc hear­ ing officer. My objection would not apply to such a case. (M) 28. No comments were received. 29. The limitations on what types of grievances may be appealed to the Hearings Division, Civil Service step 4. - Probationary service ratings, probationary dismissals, and counseling or reprimands are all limited to step 3. I dis­ like this limitation and would like to see it gone entirely. At least for status employees, counseling and reprimands should be appealable, especially when they contain other 236 material ("Due allowed to use Also, it seems been extended, to your attendance problems, you will only be annual time under emergency conditons.") to me that when the probationary period has the restriction should be lifted. (U) - Since the Department of Management and Budget maintains state buildings, grievances of employees of other departments con­ cerning the physical work environment are dismissed without a hearing because the Department of Management and Budget is not the immediate employer. In general, a state employee has several "employers", thus their ability to obtain relief is more limited than an employee of, for example, General Motors. (U) - As long as the Civil Service Commission chooses to provide a hearing process without cost to the employee, there must be some limitation on the types of grievances heard at step four simply to contain the number of grievances filed. However, it is my opinion that the practice of allowing free hearings is absurd and that the parties should share equally in the cost of all hearings. Cost then becomes the determining fac­ tor which prevents countless frivolous grievances from being appealed to the higher steps of the procedure rather than the arbitrary inclusion of certain categories of grievances. Frankly, some grievances regarding reprimands and counseling memoranda are far more significant than the issues involved in some grievances scheduled for hearings. Additionally, when grievances cannot be appealed beyond step three the management representative reviewing the grievance at step three is almost forced to take the position of "the judge" rather than the departmental advocate. This "switching of hats" causes serious credibility problems to employees and managers alike. (M) - An employee should not be able to appeal a conditional serv­ ice rating beyond step 3. I would add this to the existing limitations. (M) - To my knowledge there are few limitations, if any, on the types of grievances that may be appealed to the Hearings Division. While I agree that probationary dismissals and disciplinary memorandas should not be appealable to the fourth step, I believe that further limitations should be specifically stated which would allow for the screening of what I would consider to be harassment grievances due to the type of grievances that are often scheduled for Civil Service fourth step hearings where the issue is stated as "Have the employee's rights been violated?". I believe that a specific Civil Service or departmental rule or regulation should be identified as having been violated before a fourth step hearing will be scheduled. (M) 237 - 30. 31. The limitation on the appeal to step 4 of the dismissal of a probationary employee has caused problems due to the Hearings Division's failure to require the grievant to do more than allege prohibited discrimination. (M) The criteria used by the Hearings Division to administratively dis­ miss a grievance without a Civil Service step 4 hearing. - The idea here, so far as I can tell, is simply to reduce the case load for Hearings Division. The clear intent here has always been to avoid hearings. (U) - Some cases should be heard that are not heard, and visa versa. The criteria are not clear and are not consistently applied. (U) (M) - The criteria are not spelled out as a well defined body of thought. (U) (M) - Almost anyone on any issue can get a formal hearing if they complain long and hard enough. (M) - To my knowledge there is no criteria by which the Hearings Division administratively dismisses grievances. There had, around a year ago, been an attempt to limit grievances at the fourth step, but I believe that the employee organiza­ tions have effectively neutralized that effort. (M) - Denying a hearing because the Hearings Officer lacks author­ ity to grant relief is improper. (M) The procedure a grievant may use to appeal a Hearings Division decision to dismiss a grievance without a hearing. - There is no formal procedure, and 90% of the time the whole thing is a rubber stamp to the scheduling officer's decision. W e ’re getting an increasing number of these referring to Employee Relations Policy Section 4.1. These are, in effect, a ruling of non-grievability. There should not, in my opin­ ion, be such an option. Hearings Division shouldn't be able to make that decision. (U) - Not clearly spelled out in policy. procedure. (M) - Ex parte meetings between a grievant and the Hearings Divi­ sion have sometimes resulted in a Civil Service decision to grant a step 4 hearing after an initial denial of a hearing. (M) - Too much ex parte communications between the grievant and There is no written 238 the Hearings Division personnel. A grievant can get a dis­ missal reversed and the department would not have an oppor­ tunity to present its position. (M) 32. 33. The procedure for conciliation of grievances appealed to step 4 Civil Service hearings. - I do not know of any cases in which there has been an effort to consiliate. (M) - They don't use the procedure very much, if at all. If they were to use it, it would be most likely to succeed in cases in which neither party has much at stake. The parties posi­ tions are already fixed in most cases. (M) - One attempt I know of was unsatisfactory, because of a lack of competence to conciliate. (M) The conduct of Civil Service step 4 hearings: in terms of the completeness of the records of facts established through the hearings. in terms of the impartiality of the Civil Service Hearings Officers. - The records of facts are pretty good. With a court reporter, they have to be. However, it is unusual to find a hearings officer seeking clarification or further information as arbi­ trators often do. This is frequently perceived as a desire to "get all the facts" and a genuine concern. Hearings Officers are usually perceived as egocentric, biased in favor of management, ritualistic, condescending, in-a-hurry-to-getdone, etc., ad infinitum. (U) - I have serious question about the impartiality of certain Civil Service Hearings Officers, not because they are blatantly pro-employee, pro-union, or pro-management, but simply because they develop a bias on certain issues and they can no longer continue to look at similar cases objectively. I also believe that Civil Service Hearings Officers have a greater tendency to base the decision on their own gut feeling on how things should be rather than interpreting the facts, the rules, or whatever. (M) - At least one Grievance Hearings Officer is perceived as being pro-employee; once ruled that "it didn't matter whether a rule had not been violated" by management, if the grievant, somehow wasn't treated "fairly" in comparison with another department's employees not similarly situated. This same 239 Hearings Officer showed a total lack of sensitivity to the ethics of the quasi-judicial nature of the grievance and appeals procedure when the Hearings Officer initiated tele­ phone contacts with Commission Appeals Officer in an appar­ ent attempt to sway the recommendation to be ultimately made to the Commission on the merits of our appeal. (M) 34. The adequacy of Civil Service step 4 Hearings Officers written decisions: in terms of the clearness of the stated facts, conclusions, and supporting reasons. in terms of the logical consistency among the stated facts, con­ clusions, and supporting reasons. in terms of timeliness. - Takes too long! (U) (M) - Many decisions rendered by the full-time Hearings Officer do not contain a well reasoned analysis of the facts of a case; conclusions are unconnected with the reasoning given; the outcome and analysis are sometimes internally incon­ sistent; similar factual situations often lead to opposite results with little or no attempts to reconcile the con­ flict being made by the Hearings Officer in his/her written opinion; decisions are often incredibly delayed. (M) - Civil Service Hearings Officers, in my opinion, tend to be far less thorough in their written opinion than an arbitra­ tor would be, presumably because of the great volume of cases they handle. Frequently, the conclusions and support­ ing reasons are dismissed with phrases such as "common labor lay says . . .". With regard to timeliness, I find that a Civil Service Hearings Officer rarely responds to a griev­ ance in the appropriate time limits. It is not unusual to wait longer than three months after the conclusion of the hearing to receive the Hearings Officer's decision. (M) 35. The availability of transcripts of Civil Service step 4 hearings. - They take too long to obtain and are very costly because of the length of hearings that are allowed to ramble. (M) - Too much delay involved in obtaining them. (M) 36. 37. The procedure for appealing a grievance to arbitration. The conduct of pre-arbitration conferences in terms of enhancing a fair and timely resolution of grievances. 240 (These comments are applicable to both 36 and 37.) - The pre-arbitration conference should have more emphasis on mediation — or it should be eliminated entirely. (U) - The employee election of arbitration is subject to the certi­ fication of the Civil Service Arbitration Officer and limited to non-discharge grievances. Both of these limits should be removed so state employees may have the same alternative in electing arbitration as private sector employees. (U) - This procedure does not offer the department any option of not becoming involved in a costly arbitration. The reasons for arbitration appear to be too equivocal with hardly any clearly defined standards of arbitrability. (M) - The recent action by the Civil Service Commission to permit dismissal cases to be appealed to outside arbitration with no quid pro quo for management is an example of pro-employee bias that is disturbing to this observer. (M) - In my opinion the pre-arbitration conference is little more than a waste of time. Issues are rarely, if ever, resolved at conference. Arbitrators have not seemed to feel bound by the parties' earlier statement of issues and the procedure seems to accomplish little more than allowing the employee an additional day of administrative leave. (M) 38. - 43. No comments were received. 44. The procedure for appealing Technical Hearings Officer, Civil Services Hearings Officer and Arbitrator decisions to the Civil Service Commission. 45. The criteria used by the Civil Service Commission in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal. (Comments received are applicable to both 44 and 45.) - I never learn from reading commission decisions, and I have no access to the process. (U) - At times the inconsistent believe that aware of the Example: Civil Service Commission renders decisions so and/or inexplicable that I find it hard to the individual Commissioners were actually opposing parties' contentions. Denial of leave to appeal to M.S.E.A. and Social Services in companion cases involving a severe blizzard in Washtenaw County in December of 1974. A.F.S.C.M.E. vs. D.S.S. went to an arbitrator who 241 ruled in favor of the grievants as to the granting of administrative leave to employees absent due to adverse weather. M.S.E.A. vs. D.S.S.. (same loca­ tion, storm, and applicable policies) was decided against the employees by an ad hoc Hearings Officer. By letting both decisions stand the inconsistencies became ratified by Commission Action. (M) - The appeal process is too complex. (M) - The Civil Service Commission can't keep up with the volume of cases, and thus many decisions are probably made by staff. (M) - Commission decisions are supported with very little documen­ tation or explanation of rationale. (M) - The process depends too much on the staff. (M) - 1 know the language they use and the criteria for decision, but I don't know how they apply it. (M) - I doubt that they read the cases or really confront the issues involved. (M) - I would urge that the Civil Service Commission follow the spirit of the state Open Meetings Act by holding its delibera­ tions and decision-making sessions in open session when it considers employee or management appeals. The Commission's credibility would be Immeasurably enhanced by this simple step; no longer would there be suspicions that "the fix was in" with deliberations moved out of the present secrecy. Secondly, a modern effective indexing system for grievance and appeals decisions is badly needed. It is now next to impossible to efficiently research past decisions in order to prepare for a hearing involving similar issues. Finally, if the Commission itself was required to make find­ ings of fact and conclusions of law on cases accepted for review, a body of case law would become available to assist managers to more correctly interpret and apply the web of rules, regulations and policies which exist today. (M) appendix l QUESTIONNAIRE TO GROUP A (549 STATE EMPLOYEES) 242 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY School of Labor and Industrial Relations South Kedzle Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 RE: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION We are evaluating the fairness and effectiveness of the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure. We need the help of Michigan State Civil Service employees, and would like to have you participate by filling out the attached questionnaire. You were selected to receive this questionnaire as part of a large representative group of Michigan State Civil Service employees. We need your response in order to assure that the information we receive is representative of the views of Michigan State Civil Service employees. It is expected that the information received through this questionnaire will help identify some of the strengths and weaknesses of the grievance and appeals procedure. Your response to the questionnaire will be entirely confidential. No persons other than the undersigned will have access to your com­ pleted questionnaire. No questionnaire will be studied individually; all will be combined together for analysis. Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire and returning it in the enclosed return-addressed, stamped envelope will be greatly appreciated. With many thanks, Kent F. Murrmann Research Assistant Jack Stieber, Professor and Project Director KM/JS same Enclosures 243 1. In your view, do employees at your place of employment typically have complete access to use of the grievance procedure? Yes _______ 2. ) ) ) ) ) No__ ___ Have you filed a grievance or State Civil Service grievance last six years? __ Undecided _______ a technical appeal in the Michigan and appeals procedure during the No__ ___ Undecided ______ How far through the procedure have you taken a grievance? ( ( ( ( ( ( 8. Undecided In your view, do Civil Service Step 4 Hearing Officers typically provide fair and impartial grievance decisions? Yes _______ 7. N o _____ Very clear Fairly clear Neither clear nor unclear Fairly unclear Very unclear Yes _______ 6. Undecided______ All in all, how clear or unclear is your understanding of how to use the grievance procedure? ( ( ( ( ( 5. N o _____ In your view, can employees at your place of employment typically request and receive grievanceforms without unreasonable delay? Yes ______ 4. Undecided ______ In your view, can employees at your place of employment typically request and receive a copy of the written grievance procedure without unreasonable delay? Yes ______ 3. No__ ___ ) ) ) ) ) ) Department step 1 Department step 2 Department step 3 Civil Service step 4 Appeal to arbitration Civil Service Commission Are you a member of a union or an employee association that repre­ sents employees in the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure? Yes _______ No__ ___ If yes, please indicate the name of the association or union by putting a check in the appropriate space (/) ( ) Michigan State Employees Association (MSEA) ( ) American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ( ) 31-M ( ) State Troopers Association ( ) Corrections Organization 244 8. continued. ( ) Highway Engineers Association ( ) Welfare Employees Union ( ) Other— please provide organization's name 9. About how many persons are usually employed under your immediate supervisor? __________ 10. About how many persons are usually employed by your department at your place of employment? ____________ 11. Please indicate the name of your department with a check in the appropriate space (/). Agriculture Attorney General Civil Rights Civil Service Commerce Corrections Education Labor (admin.) M.E.S.C. Auditor General Licensing and Regulation 12. Management and Budget Mental Health Military Affairs Natural Resources Public Health Social Services State State Highways State Police Treasury The name of the person completing this questionnaire is: APPENDIX M QUESTIONNAIRE TO GROUP B (113 STEP 4 GRIEVANTS) 245 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY School of Labor and Industrial Relations Office of the Director South Kedzie Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 RE: Grievance Procedure Evaluation We are evaluating the fairness and effectiveness of the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure. We need the help of Michigan State Civil Service employees who have had experience with the procedure, and would like to have you participate by filling out the attached questionnaire. You and all other Michigan State Civil Service employees who have had a Civil Service Step 4 grievance hearing, a technical appeal hearing, or an arbitration hearing during the last several months are receiving this questionnaire. We need your response in order to assure that the information we receive is representative of the views of state employees who have had experience with the grievance and appeals procedure. It is expected that the information received through this questionnaire will help identify some of the strengths and weaknesses of the grievance and appeals procedure. Your response to the questionnaire will be entirely confidential. No persons other than the undersigned will have access to your com­ pleted questionnaire. No questionnaire will be studied individually; all will be combined together for analysis. Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire and returning it in the enclosed, return addressed, stamped envelope will be greatly appreciated. With many thanks, Kent F. Murrmann Research Assistant Jack Stieber, Professor and Project Director 246 Please complete this questionnaire and return it in the enclosed envelope before you receive the decision of the Hearing Officer or arbitrator on your case. Some of the following questions will ask you to indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the procedure. Other questions will ask you to provide a "Yes1' or a "No” answer. Please base all your answers on your own experience with the grievance and appeals procedure. 1. Other than your present case, have you processed any grievances or technical appeals under the Michigan State Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure during the last six years? Yes ______ No _______ Don'tRecall______ If yes, please provide the information indicated below concerning your experience with the Civil Service grievance and appeals procedure. Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate 2. number number number number number of of of of of grievances __________ technical appeals __________ grievance hearings __________ arbitration hearings __________ technical appeal hearings ________ __ How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall procedure that must be followed in order to bring a case to a hearing? In answering the question do not consider the conduct of the actual hearing; consider only the process that must be followed to bring a case from the starting point in the procedure to a hearing. ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied If you are dissatisfied with any part of the procedure, please describe briefly below the reasons for your dissatisfaction. 247 3. Please evaluate your hearing in terms of the following factors: A. Was there a fair opportunity at your hearing for you or your representative to present witnesses, documents, and other evidence in support of your case? Yes ______ B. Was there a fair opportunity at your hearing for you or your representative to cross-examine witnesses presented by the department? Yes ______ N o ______ Undecided______ C. Was the Hearing Officer or aribtrator sincerely interested in receiving all the facts that are important to your case? Yes ______ D. E. Undecided ______ No ______ Undecided______ Did you understand the hearing procedure? Yes ______ F. N o ______ Did the Hearing Officer or arbitrator make fair rulings on objections during the Hearing? Yes ______ No ______ Undecided______ All in all, do you feel that the conduct of the hearing was fair and impartial? Yes ______ 4. No _______ Undecided ______ N o _______Undecided ________ If you are dissatisfied with any part of your hearing, please describe briefly below the reasons for your dissatisfaction. 248 5. Please indicate with a check in the appropriate space the type of representation you received at your hearing: ( ) A union steward, job representative, or staff representa­ tive of an employee association or union. ( ) A private attorney provided through an employee association or union. ( ) A private attorney employed by you. ( ) A fellow employee representative who was not provided through an employee association or union. ( ) You alone. ( ) 6. Other, (please describe). Please indicate with a check in the appropriate spaces the name of the union or employee association you are a member of, if any, and the name of the organization you received representation from if any: Am a Member of Received Representation From Michigan State Employees Association (MSEA) () () American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees '(AFSCME) () () 31 M () () State Troopers Association () () Corrections Organization () () Highway Engineers Association () () Welfare Employees Union () () Other (Please specify name of organization) () () 249 7. In your view, do employees at your place of employment typically have complete access to use of the grievance procedure? Yes _______ 8. No__ ___ Undecided ______ In your view, can employees at your place of employment typically request and receive grievance forms without unreasonable delay? Yes _______ 10. Undecided ______ In your view, can employees at your place of employment typically request and receive a copy of the written grievance procedure without unreasonable delay? Yes _______ 9. No__ ___ No__ ___ Undecided All in all, how clear or unclear is your understanding of how to use the grievance procedure? ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) Very clear Fairly clear Neither clear nor unclear Fairly unclear Very unclear 11. About how many persons are usually employed under your immediate supervisor? ____________ 12. About how many persons are usually employed by your department at your place of employment? ____________ 13. Please provide the following information: Your name __________________________________________________ Your address________________________________________________ street city, state, zip Your department ______________________ Your agency __________________________ County in which you report for work __ Your job classification and level APPENDIX N FOLLOW UP QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER 250 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY School of Labor and Industrial Relations Office of the Director South Kedzie Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 June 19, 1978 Dear State Employee: If you have returned the questionnaire on the grievance procedure, thank you. If not, would you do so as soon as possible? This followup letter is being sent out to all who received the questionnaire but did not return it to us prior to June 19, 1978. We recognize that filling out a questionnaire on this topic may seem like an unnecessary task; however, information from employees is needed. By taking a few minutes of your time, you can provide us with information, from the employee point of view, that will help in the evaluation of the grievance procedure. If, for some reason, you choose not to complete the questionnaire, would you please take lust a moment to rill in the background information requested in questions 8, 9, 10, and 11, tell us why you are not responding, and mail the questionnaire back. Sincerely, Kent F. Murrmann Research Assistant Jack Stieber, Professor and Project Director KFM:sk BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Reports American Arbitration Association, Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules, (New York, N.Y.: American Arbitration Association, 1970). American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Michigan State Councils 1 and 55, Union Member Attitude Survey, (unpublished report, 1956). Amundson, Norman, and Janet Grant, Union Member Attitude Survey, Western Graphic Arts Union, (Berkeley, Cali.: Institute of Industrial Relations, November, 1974). Begin, James P., The Development and Operation of Grievance Procedures in Public Employment, unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Purdue University, June 1969. Brett, Jeanne M . , and Stephen B. Goldberg, Wildcat Strikes in the Bitu­ minous Coal Mining Industry: A Preliminary Report, (unpublished report, May 1978). Bodheimer, Edgar, Jurisprudence, the Philosophy and Method of the Law, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974). Bureau of National Affairs, "Grievance Procedures for Unorganized Employ­ ees", Survey No.49, Personnel Forum, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1958). Dawis, R.V., Lofquist, H.A., and D.J. Weiss, A Theory of Work Adjustment, (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, 1968). Derber, Milton, Pashler, Peter, and Mary Beth Ryan, Collective Bargaining by State Governments in the Twelve Midwestern State, (Champaign, 111.: Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, 1974). DeWire, J.E., Comparision of Multiple Grlevants Versus Non-grievants in Industry, (Atlanta, Ge.: School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1972). Dix, Keith, and Abram Flory, Political Attitudes of West Virginia AFL-CIO Union Members, (Charleston, W.Va.: Institute for Labor Studies, Appalachia Center, West Virginia University, 1970). 251 252 Evan, William M., "Public and Private Legal Systems", in, William M. Evan (ed.), Law and Sociology, (New York, N.Y.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1967). Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Thirteth Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1977, (Washington, D.C.: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 1978). Fleming, R.W., The Labor Arbitration Process, (Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1965). Fossum. John A., Labor Relations, (Dallas, Texas: Business Publications, Inc., 1979). Golden, C.S., and V.D. Parker (eds.), Causes of Industrial Peace, (New York, N.Y.: Harper Brothers, 1949). Harbison, Frederick, and John R. Coleman, "Procedures and Methods", in C.S. Golden, and V.D. Parker (eds.), Causes of Industrial Peace, (New York, N.Y.: Harper Brothers, 1949). Killingsworth, Charles, and Melvin Segal, Grievance Machinery for State Civil Service Employees in Michigan, (Lansing, Mi.: Labor and Industrial Relations Center, Michigan State University, 1958). Killingsworth, Charles C., The Michigan Civil Service Hearings Board, Report and Recommendations, (Lansing, Mi.: Labor and Industrial Relations Center, Michigan State University, 1958). Kuhn, James W., "The Grievance Process", in John Dunlop and Neil Chamberlain (eds.), Frontiers of Collective Bargaining, (New York, N,Y,: Harper and Row, 1967). Lock, E.A., "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction", in M.D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally, 1975). Michigan Civil Service Commission, Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission, (Lansing, Mi.: Michigan Civil Service Commission, 1973-1977). Mott, Rodney L., Due Process of Law, (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobs-Merrill Co., 1926). National Industrial Conference Board, Grievance Procedures in Non-Union­ ized Companies, Studies in Personnel Policies No.109, (New York, N.Y.: National Industrial Conference Board, 1950). Ordway, Ted, and Henry C. Metcalf, Personnel Administration - Its Prlclples and Practice, (New York, N.Y.: McGraw Hill, 1926). Peach, D.A., and E.R. Llvernash, Grievance Initiation and Resolution, A Study of Basic Steel, (Boston, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974). 253 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, (Cambridge, Mass.: sity Press, 1971). Harvard Univer­ Robinson, J. P., Athanasiou, R. A., and K. B. Head, Measures of Occu­ pational Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics, (Ann Arbor, Mi.: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1969). Roethlisberger, F. J., and W. T. Dickson, Management and the Worker, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939; revised 1943). Rosen, Hjaimer, and R. A. Rosen, The Union Members Speak, (New York, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 1955). Ross, Arthur M . , "Distressed Grievance Procedures and Their Rehabilita­ tion," in Mark 1. Kahn (ed.), Labor Arbitration and Industrial Change, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1963). Scott, W. G . , The Management of Conflict: Appeals Systems in Organiza­ tions , (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin and The Dorsey Press, 1965). Seidman, Joel, London, Jack, Karsk, Bernard, and Daisey Tagiarozzo, The Worker Views His Union, (Chicago, 111.: The University of Chicago Press, 1958). Simkin, William E . , Acceptibility as a Factor in Arbitration Under an Existing Agreement, (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Penn­ sylvania Press, 1952). Sllchter, Sumner H . s Healy, James J., and Robert E. Livernash, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management, (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1960). Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M . , and C. L. Hulin, The Measurement of Satis­ faction in Work and Retirement, (Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally, 1969). Special Committee to Study Civil Service Policy and Operations, Report of the Special Committee to Study Civil Service Policies and Operations, (Lansing, Mi.: Michigan House of Representatives, 1974). Stieber, Jack, Public Employee Unionism: Structure, Growth, Policy, (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1973). Thomson, A. W. I. The Grievance Procedure in the Private Sector, Ithaca, N.Y.: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 1974). United States Civil Service Commission, Grievance Arbitration in the Federal Service, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977). United States Civil Service Commission, Office of Labor-Management Rela­ tions, Grievance Arbitration in the Federal Service: Principles, Practices,and Precedents, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977). 254 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Public Em­ ployment in 1977, GE 77, No.l, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978). United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Character­ istics of Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, July 1, 1975, Bulletin No. 1957, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966). United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Grievance and Arbitration Provisions in State and Local Government, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973). Uphoff, W.H., and Marvin D. Dunnette, Understanding the Union Member, (Minneapolis, Minn.: Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota Press, 1956). Van Mol, Louis J., Effective Procedures for the Handling of Employee Grievances, (Chicago, 111.: Civil Service Assembly, Personnel Report Series No. 531, 1953). Viteles, M.S., Motivation and Morale in Industry, (New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton and Co., 1953). Vollmer, Howard M . , Employee Rights and the Employment Relationship, (Berkeley Ca.: University of California Press, 1960). Vroom, V.H., Work and Motivation, (New York, N.Y.: Wiley, 1964). Weiss, D.J., Dawls, R.V., England, G.W., and L.H. Lofquist, Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1967). Witte, E.E., Historical Survey of Labor Arbitration, (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952). Journal Articles Adams, George W., "Grievance Arbitration and Judicial Review in North America", Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol.9, No.3 (1971). Ash, Phillip, "The Parties to the Grievance". Personnel Psychology, Vol.23, No.l (January 1970). Beach, Dale S., "An Organizational Problem - Subordinate-Superior Rela­ tions", Advanced Management, Vol.25 (December 1960). Bernstein, Irving, "West Coast Trade Union Characteristics, Membership, and Influence", Monthly Labor Review, Vol.82, No.5 (May 1959). 255 Eckerman, A. C., "An Analysis of Grievances and Aggrieved Employees in a Machine Shop and Foundry," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 2 (February 1948). Edvards, Harry J., "Due Process Considerations in Labor Arbitration," The Arbitration Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3 (March 1970). Evan, William M . , "Organization, Man and Due Process of Law," American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, No. 4 (August 1961). Fleishman, Edwin A, and Edwin F. Harris, "Patterns of Leadership Be­ havior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnovers," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 1 (January 1962). Fleming, R. W . , "Reflections on the Nature of Labor Arbitration," Michigan Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 7 (May 1963). Karsh, Bernard, "Union Traditions and Membership Apathy," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 10 (September 1958). Karsh, Bernard, and Glenn W. Miller, "The Local Union Officer, His Back­ ground, Activities, and Attitudes," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 10 (September 1957). Killingsworth, Charles C., "Grievance Adjudication in Public Employment," American Arbitration Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (January 1958). King, Brian L., "Some Aspects of the Active Labor Arbitrator," Personnel Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2 (February 1971). Kissler, Gary D . , "Grievance Activity and Union Membership: A Study of Government Employees," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 4 (April 1977). Krislow, Joseph, and Robert M. Peters, "Grievance Arbitrration in State and Local Government: A Survey," The Arbitration Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3 (March 1970). Krislow, Joseph, and Jacob Schmulowitz, "Grievance Arbitration in State and Local Government Units," The Arbitration Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3 (March 1963). Lawshe, C. H . , and R. M. Guion, "A Comparison of Management-Labor Attitudes Toward Grievance Procedures," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 4 (1951). Marshall, J. F . , "Public Employee Associations— Roles and Programs," Public Personnel Management, Vol. 3, No. 3 (March 1974). Martin, J. E., "State Employee Affiliation and Attitude Differences," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 5 (May 1978). 256 Nigro, Felix A., "Labor Relations In State and Local Governments", Person­ nel Administration, Vol.33, No.6 (Novermber-December 1970). O'Connor, John R . , "Handling Employee Grievances", Public Employee Rela­ tions Library, No.2 (1968). Price, John, DeWire, John, and Kenneth Scherkel, "Three Studies In Griev­ ances", Personnel Journal, Vol.55, No.l (January 1976). Ronan, W.W., "Work Group Attributes and Grievance Activity", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.47, No.l (January 1964). Ronner, W.V., "Handling Grievances of Nonunion Employees", Personnel, Vol.39, No.2 (March-April 1962). Segal, Melvin J., "Grievance Procedures for Public Employees", Labor Law Journal, Vol.9, No.12 (December 1958). Selzer, George, "Impartiality in Arbitration: Its Conditions and Bench Marks", Journal of Collective Negotiations, Vol.6, No.l (January 1977). Ullrnan, Joseph C., and James P. Begin, "The Structure and Scope of Appeals Procedures for Public Employees", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol.23, No.3 (April 1970). Wanous, J.P., and E.E. Lawler, "Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfac­ tion", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.56, No.2. (April 1972). Conference and Convention Proceedings Aaron, Benjamin, "The Settlement of Disputes Over Rights: A Comparative View", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,Vol.118, No.5, October 1974. Chamberlain, Neil W . , "Neutral Consultants in Collective Bargaining", Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1962). Killingsworth, Charles C., "Arbitration Then and Now", Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators, Boston, Mass., April 6, 1972. Little, Walter, "The Role of Arbitration in Industrial Relations", Industrial Relations Seminar of the Industrial Relations Center, Queen's University, May 5-10, 1974. 257 McKelvey, Jean T., and Derek L. Rogers, "Survey of the Arbitration Profession in 1969", Twenty-fourth Annual Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, 1971. Michigan State University, Labor and Industrial Relations Center, "The Grievance Process", Proceedings of the Labor and Industrial Relations Center Conference, March 23-24, 1956, Sherman, Herbert L. Jr., "Arbitrators Duty to Disclosure— A Sequel", Twenty-fourth Annual Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1971).