Impasse

Impasse News

Read the latest impasse news here. Keep up with all the campus, state, and national news related to higher education here.

Impasse Articles

UFF-UCF and the Board of Trustees (BOT) were unable to reach agreement on three articles (10, 16, and 23). The latest versions of the BOT proposals are linked below. These proposals differ, often drastically, from the BOT's proposals located on the Bargaining Proposals page.

What is Impasse?

When a union and representatives of a public body such as a school board cannot reach agreement, either party may declare impasse by doing so in writing to PERC (Public Employment Relations Commission).

Mediation may be utilized before, during and after an impasse has been declared. The PERC shall appoint and submit all unresolved issues to a special master acceptable to both parties.

All unresolved issues are submitted to the special master at the hearing. Or, the parties may agree to bypass the special master proceedings and submit all unresolved issues to the school board or appropriate legislative body at a special hearing. (There is some question about who would be the appropriate "legislative body" in this instance, the Board of Trustees of UCF or the Board of Governors for the Florida universities.)

The special master considers the disputed issues using comparison, the positions of the parties, and other factors spelled out under the collective bargaining law. These may include comparisons such as income for similar work in the same local area, or comparisons of income paid by Florida employers of similar size.

The union and the public employer are not required to agree with the special master's recommendations.

The special master is required to issue a recommended decision within 15 days after the close of the final hearing to the Commission and to representatives of both parties.

The recommended decision of the special master shall be deemed accepted by the parties except as to those recommendations which a party specifically rejects. Such rejection must be filed with the Commission within 20 calendar days after the date the recommended decision was received by that party. The written rejection must include a statement of the cause for rejection of each recommendation.

The chief executive officer (of the public body) shall, within 10 days after rejection of a recommendation of the special master, submit to the legislative body a copy of the findings of fact and recommendation of the special master, together with the chief executive officer's recommendation for settling the disputed impasse issues. The union shall also submit its recommendations for settling the disputed issues to such legislative body.

The legislative body shall conduct a public hearing at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions.

Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed issues.

Following the resolution of the disputed issues, the parties shall reduce to writing an agreement which includes both the agreed upon issues and the disputed issues resolved by the legislative body and submit it for ratification.

The only issues that may be presented to the legislative body for their resolution are those recommendations of the special magistrate which were rejected by either party. All other matters contained in the special magistrate's recommended decision are deemed to have been accepted by the parties and may not be addressed by the legislative body. Similarly, the legislative body may not address those issues which were tentatively agreed to by the parties prior to impasse.

Once the legislative body decides how to resolve the issues in dispute, the parties are required to reduce the school board's resolution of those issues to writing and to include those together with the agreed-upon portion of the special magistrate's recommended decision and those items tentatively agreed to prior to impasse.

Typically, the legislative body ratifies the agreement because it includes their decisions to resolve the impasse. If the union chooses not to ratify the agreement, the legislative body's resolution of those portions of the special magistrate's recommendation rejected by either party take effect as of the date of the legislative body's action and continue for the remainder of the fiscal year which was the subject of negotiations.

The school board may not impose those portions of the special magistrate's recommendation which neither part objected to, nor may the school board impose those items which were tentatively agreed to prior to impasse.

At any time after the declaration of impasses and prior to the legislative imposition of terms and conditions of employment following the legislative hearing, either party may request a return to the bargaining table. The party making the request should be able to demonstrate that its position has changed or that there has been a change in conditions which affect the parties sufficient to justify return to the table.

What is the Impasse Time Line?

The time line involves several steps. First, a special magistrate has to be selected. The parties have twenty days to respond after a list of candidates is sent to them (about 3 weeks).

Then the special master schedules a hearing and must issue findings within 15 days of the conclusion of the hearing (2 to 3 weeks).

If either party disagrees with the recommendations of the master, then the head of the BOT bargaining team has 10 days to submit findings to the "legislative body," which may be the BOT or the BOG. The legislative body then schedules a public hearing (at least 2 weeks).

Following the public hearing the legislative body will issue a contract and the bargaining unit will be called on to ratify or reject the contract. If the bargaining unit rejects the contract, the legislative body may impose one of its own design, not necessarily the one submitted for ratification, for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Why would BOT call Impasse?

Since the UCF administration and the Board of Trustees have both been less than forthcoming with plans that affect the handling of the budget, the allocation of resources, and possible program eliminations and attendant layoffs, we can only speculate about their ultimate intentions and designs. Nevertheless, the BOT bargaining team has sought to reduce bargaining unit members' rights in several areas pertaining specifically to salaries, evaluations, rights, and grievances. In several areas, the UFF has refused to accede to this continuous erosion of work place rights and administrative accountability.

Also, the UCF administration would like to proceed with its own unilateral decisions about individual raises, salary cuts-such as through furlough, layoffs and nonreappointments, without having to negotiate theses actions.

Further, the administration has refused to recognize both individual and chapter grievances, particularly in the area of capricious, arbitrary, and indeterminate annual evaluation criteria, and would like to rewrite the contract to make it more difficult for the UFF to represent the interests of bargaining unit members.

Who is Michael Mattimore?

He is the Tallashasse attorney that they Board of Trustees' Bargaining Team retained to be their lead negotiator. Under his council the BOT declared impasse. Here is a list of payments UCF made to Mr. Mattimore for his services as chief negotiator.