Some researchers suggest that grievance procedures and the arbitration process are effective tools that encourage careful decision making by school districts and administrative staff in the handling of personnel decisions (Shipley, 1974). Others contend that grievance procedures, which typically include arbitration as the final stage of the process, may be a hindrance in administrators’ ability to exercise discretion in school management operations (Hess & Kelly, 2006; Johnson & Donaldson, 2006). For this empirical study, multiple case studies were conducted in the state of Florida. Semistructured interviews were conducted with district and school administrators, union leaders, and teachers to explore grievance and arbitration practices and to understand how grievance and arbitration decisions are made in districts and schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallouD. (2000a). Contractual constraints on school management: Principals’ perspectives on teacher contracts. In RavitchD., & ViterittiJ. (Eds.), City schools: Lessons from New York. (pp. 89–116). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
BallouD. (2000b). Teacher contracts in Massachusetts.Boston: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Analysis.
3.
BoydW., CrowsonR., & GeelT. (2007). Rational choice theory and the politics of education: Promise and limitations. Journal of Educational Policy, 9(5), 127–145.
4.
CarlingA. (1992). Social divisions.London: Verso.
5.
ChaS.-H. (2008, April). Explaining teachers’ job satisfaction, intent to leave, and actual teacher turnover: A structural equation modeling approach. Paper presented at the American Education Finance Association, Denver, CO.
6.
CoburnC. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
7.
Cohen-VogelL., & IngleK. (2007). When neighbours matter most: Innovation, diffusions, and state policy adoption in tertiary education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), 241–262.
8.
Cohen-VogelL., & Osborne-LampkinL. (2007). Allocating quality: Collective bargaining agreements and administrative discretion over teacher assignment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 433–461.
9.
Cohen-VogelL., & Osborne-LampkinL. (2008, March). Obstacles to strategic teacher assignment: District–union contracts or professional norms? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
10.
ColemanJ. (1973). The mathematics of collective action.London: Heinemann.
11.
CrowsonR. (2003). The turbulent policy environment in education: Implications of school administration and accountability. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 29–43.
12.
DaveyH. (1948). Hazards in labor arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1(3), 386–405.
13.
DelaneyJ. (1983). Strikes, arbitration, and teacher salaries: A behavioral analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36(3), 431–446.
14.
De VyerF. (1962). Labor arbitration after twenty-five years. Southern Economic Journal, 28(3), 235–245.
15.
DurkheimE. (1893). The division of labor in society.London: Macmillan, 1984.
16.
FettermanD. (1989). Ethnography step by step.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
FriedmanD., & HechterM. (1988). The contribution of rational choice theory to macrosociological research. Sociological Theory, 6, 201–218.
18.
GandzJ., & WhiteheadD. (1982). The relationship between industrial relations climate and grievance initiation and resolution. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting: Industrial Relations Research Association (pp. 320–328). Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
19.
HeathA. (1976). Rational choice and social exchange.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HebdonR., & SternR. (1998). Tradeoffs among expression of industrial conflict: Public sector strike bans and grievance arbitrations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51(2), 204–221.
21.
HessF. M., & KellyA. (2006). Scapegoat, albatross, or what? The status quo in teacher collective bargaining. In HannawayJ., & RotherhamA. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's school (pp. 53–88). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
22.
HessF. M., & WestM. R. (2006). A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective bargaining for the 21st century.Cambridge, UK: Program on Education Policy and Governance.
JohnsonS. M., & DonaldsonM. L. (2006). The effects of collective bargaining on teacher quality. In HannawayJ., & RotherhamA. (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's school (pp. 111–140). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
25.
KerchnerC. T. (1986). Union-made teaching: The effects of labor relations on teaching work. Review of Research in Education, 13, 317–349.
26.
LiebermanM. (1980). Public-sector bargaining: A policy reappraisal.Lexington, MA: Heath.
27.
MarchJ. G., & OlsenJ. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factor in political life. American Political Science Review, 78, 734–749.
28.
McCallB. (1990). Interest arbitration and the incentive to bargain: A principal-agent approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(1), 151–167.
29.
McDonnellL. M., & PascalA. H. (1978). Organized teachers and local schools. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 33(2), 33–44.
30.
McDonnellL. M., & PascalA. H. (1988). Teachers unions and educational reform (Document No. JRE-02). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
31.
McLaughlinM. (1994). Strategic sites for teachers’ professional development. In GrimmettP., & NeufeldJ. (Eds.), Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity: Professional growth and restructuring in the context of change (pp. 31–51). New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
MilesM., & HubermanA. (1984). Qualitative data analysis.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
MitchellD., KerchnerC., ErkW., & PriorG. (1981). The impact of collective bargaining on school management and policy. American Journal of Education, 89(2), 147–188.
34.
NgI., & DastmalchianA. (1989). Determinants of grievance outcomes: A case study. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 42(3), 393–403.
35.
Osborne-LampkinL. (2008, March). Grievance arbitration in education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York.
36.
Osborne-LampkinL., & Cohen-VogelL. (2008, April). Grievance arbitration: Diminishing authority in personnel decision-making? Paper presented at the American Education Finance Association, Denver, CO.
37.
PeachD. (1972). Union and management decision-making in the grievance process. Relations Industrielles, 27(4), 757–767.
38.
RowanB. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 259–279.
39.
ScottJ. (2000). Rational choice theory. In BrowningG., HalcliA., & WebsterH. (Eds.), Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
ShipleyD. E. (1974). Defining the scope of grievance arbitration in public education employment contracts. University of Chicago Law Review, 41(4), 814–824.
41.
TurnerJ., & RobinsonJ. (1972). A pilot study on the validity of grievance settlement rates as a predictor of the union-management relationship. Journal of Industrial Relations, 14(3), 314–322.
42.
TyeB. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling.New York: Teachers College Press.
43.
WebsterW. (1985). Effective collective bargaining in public education.Ames: Iowa State University Press.
44.
YinR. (1989). Case study research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
45.
ZachA., & BlochR. (1995). Labor agreement in negotiation and arbitration.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
