2008 Annual Report

[Excerpt] It has been a challenging year for labor relations in the United States. Workers experienced heightened concern for their personal financial situations and job security. Management focused intensely on competitiveness issues and the resources needed to weather a global financial crisis. Faced with intense global competition, many U.S. companies have moved to low cost off-shore operations. And the perilous financial conditions have caused other U.S. companies to downsize, dramatically increasing unemployment numbers in this country. Given the confluence of global competition and financial unrest, not surprisingly we have noted an increase in labor-management tension at the bargaining table. Negotiations have become more stressful and challenging

Fifty-Sixth Annual Report of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Fiscal Year 2003

Federal Mediation and Conciliation ServiceFMCSFY2003_Annual_Report.pdf: 385 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

2005 Annual Report

[Excerpt] In this first decade of the 21st century, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is positioned to play a key role in historic changes affecting our workplaces and our economy. With economic globalization has come the need for a flexible, mobile workforce. Free trade has engendered a new set of international competitors for U.S. companies. Health care and pension costs continue to rise, placing a significant economic burden on employers and employees. This year, the labor movement faced its own internal turmoil when the Service Employees International Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Laborers’ International Union of North America disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO

2006 Annual Report

[Excerpt] This past August, FMCS’ 13th National Labor-Management Conference brought more than 1,500 people representing labor and management interests together in Chicago. In addition to providing 60-plus workshops over three days, FMCS gave attendees the opportunity to hear the thoughts of some of today’s most important players in labor-management relations, including Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, UNITE/HERE Hospitality Industry President John Wilhelm, NLRB General Counsel Ronald Meisburg, and The Permanente Company President and CEO Francis Crosson. The success of our conference illustrates precisely what FMCS does best: providing opportunities for labor and management to come together and discuss their common issues

Bargaining and Distribution of Power in the EU's Conciliation Committee

The European Union (EU) has moved towards bicameralism, making the codecision procedure its most important mechanism for decision making. To gauge if European Parliament (EP) and Council of Ministers (CM) are equally powerful ‘codecision makers’, understanding of the final stage of the procedure – bargaining in the Conciliation Committee – is crucial. Here, EP and CM are assumed to have spatial preferences determined by their respective internal decision mechanisms. Applying bargaining theory to predict inter-institutional agreements in the Conciliation Committee, it turns out that although institutionally the Council and the Parliament are seemingly in a symmetric position, CM has significantly greater influence on EU legislation.European Union codecision procedure, Conciliation Committee, bargaining, spatial voting, decision procedures

The Best Offense Is a Good Defense: Examining Failure to Conciliate as an Affirmative Defense in Employment Discrimination Cases Brought By the EEOC

Prior to bringing suit on behalf of an employee, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must follow specific procedural requirements and must engage in conciliation. The purpose of conciliation is for opposing parties to avoid the court system by encouraging out-of-court settlements. Employers in the majority of circuits can argue failure to conciliate as an affirmative defense when employers feel the Commission has failed its duty to conciliate. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that conciliation efforts are not judicially reviewable and as such cannot be raised as an affirmative defense. This Comment will explain why a minimal review of conciliation efforts is necessary, and Congress should amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to provide courts the power to sanction the Commission or an employer that does not engage in good faith in conciliation. A minimal review of conciliation efforts is the proper standard because it provides the Commission with deference to determine the appropriate conciliation agreement in the circumstances, but also provides an incentive for the parties to conciliate properly the first time. Furthermore, Congress should amend 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) to provide that a party who has engaged in bad faith conciliation may have to pay the other party’s attorney’s fees or negotiation costs. A minimal review of conciliation procedures and a statutory amendment are the best way to ensure the statutory requirements are meaningfully followed

A Critique of the new 2009 Arbitration Law of Lagos State

The article critically examines the sections of the new law with special reference to its relationship with the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act