-
Final-offer Interest Arbitration
-
A technique for resolving bargaining impasses in which the arbitrator is forced to choose among the final positions of the parties--rather than order adoption of some intermediate position (i.e., "split the difference"). It can apply to individual items or "packages" of items. The theory is that each party, expecting that the interest arbitrator will pick the most reasonable of the two final offers, will have an incentive to move closer to the position of the other party in order to increase the odds that the arbitrator will select its final offer as the more reasonable of the two. This in turn narrows the gap between the parties: if the gap is narrow enough it can be bridged by the parties themselves (by, e.g., splitting the difference).
-
Interest
-
In interest-based bargaining (external link), the concerns, needs, or desires behind an issue: why the issue is being raised.
-
Interest Arbitration
-
The arbitrator, instead of interpreting and applying the terms of an agreement to decide a grievance, determines what provisions the parties are to have in their collective bargaining agreement. Also see ARBITRATION (external link).
-
Interest-based Bargaining
-
A bargaining technique in which the parties start with (or at least focus on) interests rather than proposals; agree on criteria of acceptability that will be used to evaluate alternatives; generate several alternatives that are consistent with their interests, and apply the agreed-upon acceptability criteria to the alternatives so generated in order to arrive at mutually acceptable contract provisions. The success of the technique depends, in large measure, on mutual trust, candor, and a willingness to share information. (Compare with the duty to bargain in good faith.) But even where these are lacking, the technique, with its focus on interests and on developing alternatives, tends to make the parties more flexible and open to alternative solutions and thus increases the likelihood of agreement.
IBB often is contrasted with "position-based" bargaining, in which the parties start with proposals (which implicitly are solutions to known or inferred problems). However, even in position-based bargaining the parties normally are expected to justify their proposals in terms of their interests by identifying the problems to which the proposals are intended as solutions. (There is no case law in which FLRA has held that a refusal to so justify proposals constitutes bad faith bargaining.) Once the interests are on the table, the parties are in a position to evaluate their initial and subsequent proposals--whether generated by group brainstorming (a common method of generating alternatives in IBB) or by more customary methods--in terms of the extent they are likely to effectively and efficiently solve problems without creating additional problems. For an analytical treatment of the process, see Walton and McKersie`s discussion of "integrative" bargaining in A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. For a popular treatment of the process, see Getting to Yes, by Fisher and Ury.
-
Showing of Interest (SOI)
-
The required evidence of employee interest supporting a representation petition. The SOI for a petition seeking exclusive recognition is 30% (5 CFR 2422.3(c)); 10% to intervene in the election (5 CFR 2422.8(c)(1); and 10% when petitioning for dues allotment recognition (5 CFR 2422.3(d)). Evidence of such a showing can consist of, e.g., signed and dated authorization cards or petitions.