Alternative methods of dispute resolution II

The next higher level of third-party intervention in bargaining is fact-finding. Fact-finding is most frequently used in the public sector and often begins when mediation has failed to bring about a settlement in negotiations. Under fact finding procedures, a neutral third party enters the negotiations and prepares a report that outlines the conditions surrounding the dispute and the positions of the parties. Fact-finding often goes beyond mere determination of the facts, because in many instances the fact finder is also empowered to prepare a set of recommendations as a suggested basis for a settlement of the dispute.

Proponents of fact-finding argue that it facilitates a settlement of collective bargaining disputes in three ways. First, fact-finding can resolve important disagreements between TWU Local 100 and MTA over the truthfulness of the information with which each side buttresses its demands. Second, the fact-finder’s recommendations can serve as a focal point around which a settlement can be reached. Finally and perhaps most importantly, it argued that fact-finding subjects the bargainer’s demands to public scrutiny therefore inducing both sides to adopt more moderate positions than they would if the negotiations remained behind closed doors. Despite these claims in its favor, evidence suggests that at least in the public sector fact-finding has declined in its effectiveness as a means of dispute resolution. The major reason seems to be that fact-finding does not, contrary to its proponents’ claims, arouse enough public pressure to move the parties to a settlement.