Fact‐Finding Effectiveness: Evidence from New York State Fact‐Finding Effectiveness

Abstract

In a collective‐bargaining environment characterized by increasing fiscal and taxpayer pressures, this article examines the continued viability of fact‐finding as a dispute‐resolution mechanism in New York State's public sector. This is an important question because fact‐finding is the final dispute‐resolution procedure for most unionized employees in New York and many other states. Whether fact‐finding effectiveness was measured by the proximity of fact‐finder recommendations to the final settlement or by outright acceptance of the fact‐finder report, regression results show that New York fact‐finding has successfully met the challenges of the intensified environmental pressures in the 1990s. No significant decline was found in its ability to move parties toward the compromise outcome. Part of the fact‐finding's continued success can be attributed to the policy shift by New York's Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in 1991 in the role of the fact‐finder from an accommodative to a more adjudicative function. The well‐reasoned adjudicative fact‐finding report has more potential to bring public pressure to bear on the extreme positions of the parties. Mediation was better left to the professional PERB mediators. Finally, it also was found that fact‐finders who were full‐time neutrals were more effective under this more adjudicative style.

Does Fact-Finding Promote Settlement? Theory and a Test

“…As in their model, we consider two parties A and fmding) . Hebdon (2001) reports general success of fact fmding in New York State through the 1990's.…”

“…We examine a fundamentally different issue by considering arbitrators who place positive fixed weight on the fact-fmder recommendation in determining an otherwise unconstrained fmal settlement. Hebdon (2001) highlights that there are currently no theoretical models offact-fmding.…”

“…As such, their recommendations may foreshadow an eventual arbitrated settlement. Hebdon (2001), for example, reports that a chief aim of the public policy change in New York state in 1991 was to ''give more weight to the fact-finder recommendations'' (p. 74). Here we ask whether nonbinding recommendations, such as those issued by factfinders, significantly affect dispute rates and/or bargaining outcomes.…”

Alternative dispute resolution

“…The procedure had a significant impact on labor policy in the US as several states implemented final-offer arbitration to settle public sector labor disputes [2]. Canadian transportation and fisheries industries have used it.…”

Nonbinding recommendations: the relative effects of focal points versus uncertainty reduction on bargaining outcomes

“…First, a recommendation may serve as a 4 For example, Wisconsin arbitrators for public sector labor disputes first mediate the cases, and they only use arbitration in the event that mediation fails (see Babcock and Taylor, 1996). Also, Hebdon (2001) notes that New York state public policy allows certain disputes to utilize a formal fact-finder recommendation, which is nonbinding, prior to implementation of a legislated (binding) settlement. As another example, many counties in Utah and North Carolina now require that divorce and custody cases be mediated before they proceed to trial.…”