No description available.

The purpose of the study was to investigate and report the effectiveness of theprofessional negotiator concerning the results of teacher-school board negotiations as perceived by randomly selected Pennsylvania school superintendents.A questionnaire was constructed and distributed to 104 randomly selected Pennsylvania school superintendents. A total of eighty-seven superintendents completed and returned the questionnaire. The responses of the superintendents to the questionnaire were used to determine: the degree to which thirty-one selected variables were negotiated into the 1973-74 teacher-school board contracts; the extent of the employment of professional negotiators by selected Pennsylvania school boards; the impact of the professional negotiator on teacher-school board contracts in selected Pennsylvania school districts and the value of the employment of a professional negotiator as perceived by randomly selected Pennsylvania school superintendents.The returned questionnaires were divided into two categories. One category consisted of responses from superintendents representing school boards who employed a professional negotiator; the second category involved responses from superintendents representing school boards who did not employ a professional negotiator. The superintendents of school districts in which a professional negotiator was employed were requested to respond to questions related to general characteristics of the school district, results of the negotiating process, and information related to the professional negotiator. The superintendents of school districts in which a professional negotiator was not employed were requested to respond to questions related to the general characteristics of the school district and the results of the negotiating process.Professional negotiators were employed by approximately 40 percent of the school boards included in the sample. The greater the pupil enrollment the greater the probability the school board employed a professional negotiator. Most professional negotiators reported in the study were trained to be attorneys. The employment of a professional negotiator by the school board delayed the date of agreement upon a contract and increased the probability that the negotiations arrived at impasse. Professional negotiators negotiated a broader range of variables into the teacher-school board contracts than other school board negotiators. The average minimum and maximum teacher salaries at selected levels were higher in school districts represented by a professional negotiator than in school districts not represented by a professional negotiator. The most frequently given reason for employing a professional negotiator was to reduce teacher-administrator tension. Over 90 percent of the superintendents included in the sample expressed satisfaction with the professional negotiator employed by the school board.

By studying the evolution of :interest arbitration in the private and public sectors, this study was an attempt to examine the rationale for the infrequent use of voluntary binding interest arbitration in Pennsylvania and how it might be made a rwre viable alternative to the strike. Two questions addressed this concern: 1. Why has voluntary binding arbitration been infrequently used in public education in Pennsylvania while the strike has been the normal resolution tool in interest disputes? 2. What will make voluntary binding arbitration a more viable alternative to a strike when an impasse arises in the state of Pennsylvania? A survey instrument addressing these issues was sent to 263 school districts in the Pennsylvania public education system. These school districts were divided into three classifications: non.strikers, strikers, and voluntary binding interest arbitration users. Also surveyed were the Pennsylvania State Education Association's Uniserve Directors (N=51). Each of these groups provided unique information related to the research questions. Within each school district the questionnaire was sent to the chief negotiator for management, the school board chairperson, the superintendent, the chief negotiator for the union, and the local union president. Members of the management classification were found unwilling to rel:inquish their decision making duties to an arbitrator, a third party neutral. There was a considerable reluctance by management to use voluntary binding interest arbitration. An arbitrator was not only distrusted by management, but also by the union. Management thought they lost financially when utilizing the services of an arbitrator, since they perceived arbitrators' tended to be pro-labor when rendering interest awards. In order to make voluntary interest arbitration a more viable alternative to the strike, several areas of agreement emerged. If the settlement fonna.t was on an issue-by-issue basis then interest arbitration would probably be used more frequently. If mediation arbitration was used with an issue-by-issue settlement format then interest arbitration could be an even more viable alternative. Most groups surveyed argued voluntary binding interest arbitration would be utilized more if arbitrators were formally trained in public sector interest arbitration. In addition, 100st groups believed that voluntary binding interest arbitration would be used more if there was an appeals process through the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board if either party alleged that the arbitrator's award was capricious. / Ed. D.