Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to define management rights from a survey of the literature and to analyze the management rights clause, grievance procedure clause and binding arbitration awards in the largest unified school district in each California county. Additionally, the statewide findings were compared with 1980 Los Angeles County unified school districts. Information concerning management rights and grievance procedures was obtained through written and telephone surveys. Findings from 1990 were statistically compared with those in Los Angeles County unified districts in 1980. Statistics utilized included chi-square test of independent samples; z binomial test and t-test of independent samples. Selected findings. In 1990, unified school districts were (1) less likely to include a management rights clause; (2) less likely to write such a clause in specific terms; (3) not as likely to include the rights of control over district resources and services or over entering into contracts and sub-contracts. Significantly more districts (1) included the right to establish rules, regulations and policies for the district; (2) allowed filing of grievances based on the management rights clause; and (3) included a "narrow" grievance definition. No significant difference was found concerning the listing of binding arbitration as the final step in the grievance procedure or in awards from binding arbitration favoring management or union. Selected recommendations. Management should: (1) specifically and clearly know its rights and responsibilities; (2) strive to include a "specific" rights clause; (3) strive to include a "narrow" grievance definition; (4) strive to exempt its rights from the grievance procedures; (5) when faced with binding arbitration: (a) resist binding arbitration language; (b) enter with a determination to "win"; and (c) limit the power of the third-party arbitrator. Future study should: (1) replicate this study with a larger sample and expand into other negotiated areas; (2) address the effect of district size and setting on these contract provisions; and (3) look for trends in the number and awards of grievances referred to binding arbitration.