February 6, 2018

Harel Rainier Dayan

Jules Ian Gutierrez
Loren Mae Bolina
PA 121 Homework

How can collective bargaining agreement and the merit system coexist?

Collective bargaining agreement is an agreement between an employer and a union that

states the terms and conditions of a certain labor. This includes the given standard for work hours
and rates to pay. Meanwhile, merit system is a method of ensuring that all government officials
put into position are competent and performing by setting a standard test of skills upon hiring.
Mediating the two vaguely different concepts together seems difficult but it is in fact, not
impossible. There are four ways of doing so.

Firstly, it is possible through excluding all civil service matters from collective
agreements. These laws assume that civil service regulations are generally preferable to
negotiated agreements. As a result, such regulations are granted legislative protection without
regard to their desirability.

Secondly, it is by evaluating the effect of contract terms upon the civil service system.
Bargain collectively or to “meet and confer” upon public employers and unions still applies, but
exempts civil service matters from this duties. These generally retain certain public employer
prerogatives through a management rights section, but do not prohibit agreements affecting civil
service regulations. A public employer is apparently free to negotiate agreements contrary to
civil service regulations.

Thirdly, it is by allowing collective bargaining agreements to supersede civil service

regulations, but forbids negotiation relating to rules for the conduct and grading of examinations,
candidate rating, and promotions from rating lists. Federal officials and employees governed by
the regulations of the Federal Personnel Manual, and that the government retains certain
exclusive management rights, including the rights to hire, promote, demote and discharge.
Certain fundamental principles, such as competitive selection of appointees, grading of positions
according to legislative standards, promotion, and job protection, would not be subject to
bargaining. This approach restricts bargaining ability significantly.

Lastly, it is also feasible by mandating of minimum civil service standards by a higher

authority. In the United States, this was proposed in the Inter-governmental Personnel Bill
introduced in 1967. The bill would have required localities seeking government funds to meet
certain minimum merit standards promulgated by a presidentially appointed commission. The
standards would have covered recruitment, selection, and advancement on the basis of relative
ability, knowledge, and skills; provide equitable and adequate compensation; trained employees
to assure high-quality performance; and assured fair treatment of applicants and employees in all
aspects of employment. The applications of these principles above the minimum standards set by
the commission would be a proper subject for negotiation between unions and employers.
 A proposed National Public Employee Relations Act, written by the American Federation
of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This act would allow parties to agree on contract
provisions superseding all merit regulations, but would require submission of the entire contract
to the appropriate legislative body for ratification.

Sources:
Editors, Law Review (1971) "The Civil Service-Collective Bargaining Conflict in the Public
Sector: Attempts at Reconciliation," University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 38 : Iss. 4 , Article
8.
Pp. 841-848 (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://
www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3706&context=uclrev)
Bowman, J. S., & West, J. P. (2006). American public service: Radical reform and the merit
system. CRC Press.