2. March 3 - 4, 2014
Human Resource Services

3. APAC/CUHRE 2014 Spring Event
March 3, 2014

4. Agenda
10: :00am Welcome, Logistics, Opening Remarks, Introductions
11:00 - Noon Tuition Exchange
Noon - 1:00pm Lunch
1:00 - 2:00pm Group Discussion
2:00 – 3:15pm Immigration
3:15 – 3:30pm Break
3:30 – 5:00pm Break Out Sessions
5:00 – 5:30pm Informal Networking
5:30 – 8:00pm Evening Mixer 

5. Tuition Exchange Program
Angel Kwolek-Folland
Associate Provost for Academic & Faculty Affairs
Ileana McCray
Sr. Administrative Assistant and UF TEP Liaison

6. TEP Inc. Institutions Type (Carnegie Groupings) Number % of Category
Public Institutions 8 1%
Private Institutions
Doctoral Research Universities 51
47%
Masters Colleges & Universities
272
72%
Baccalaureate – Arts & Sciences
133
58%
Baccalaureate – Diverse Fields
101
42%
Specialized, Associate & Other 41
16%

7. TEP Inc. Fees Membership Fees - 2014 Initiation Fee
$350 (one-time charge)
Annual Dues
$500
Participation Fees
$35 per year for each Export exchange scholar sponsored.

8. TEP participating schools in Florida
17 schools participate, 2 public (UF, UNF)
University of Florida is the largest TEP participating institution in US, has been a member for 40+ years.
10% of UF TEP applicants receive TEP.
UF’s highest number of Exports/Imports (2009) averaged 25/31 respectively.

9. Five Year Historical Semester Balance for UF
Import Semesters
Export Semesters
+/-
Historical Balance (Including )
1,083
1,075 8 46 47 38 9 40 -2 24 28 -4 14
-10
5 Year Subtotal
169
176 -7
Grand Total
1,252
1,251 1

10. UF Program Financials Charge to UF Employee: $5000/AY
Subsidy from Provost’s office (for out-of-state tuition): varies
Late fee to UF Employee: $250
UF Undergrad tuition for Fall 2013 for 24 credits/year: $3600

11. Pros vs Cons for UF
Pros
Provides a low cost tuition option for faculty and staff.
Access to private/costly institutions.
Seniority pool varies each year.

12. Pros vs Cons, continued Cons
Seniority very high at UF, average years
Budget cuts limited amount of import slots
Tuition increases limit slots for imports, especially for out-of-state.
Administrative time to manage program averages .30 FTE of staff and admin/year.
Out-of-state tuition for imports $20,400/year for

13. Institutional Management of the Program
Tuition goes up
Out-of-State tuition cost
Fees
2 Semesters; no Summer except Innovation Academy
Export Institution can charge employee’s for participation in the program
Number of credits students (Imports) can take per semester
Whether to allow graduate courses
Program lengths (greater # of credits needed or Dual Degree programs).
Late fees for Employees/Exports

14. Break for Lunch

15. Paula Varnes Fussell Vice President Human Resource Services
Group Discussion
Paula Varnes Fussell
Vice President
Human Resource Services

16. Group Discussion Health and Wellness Activities Affordable Care Act
Minimum Wage Increases
Allocation Funds vs Enrollment
Dual Career Programs
VEVRAA and Section 503

17. Break

18. CUHRE, APAC, Attorneys Rooms A and Ballroom
Break Out Sessions
CUHRE, APAC, Attorneys
Rooms A and Ballroom

19. Informal Networking

20. Outdoor Pavilion (Straughn IFAS center)
Evening Mixer
Outdoor Pavilion
(Straughn IFAS center)

21. Wireless Internet Connection
To connect to the wireless internet connection:
Choose the “ufvistor” from the list of available WI-FI Networks on your device
Open a new Internet browser window and follow the prompts
If you have any problems, please let us know.

22. APAC/CUHRE 2014 Spring Event
March 4, 2014

23. Agenda 8:00 – 8:30am Breakfast
8:30 – 10:30am Collective Bargaining and Status Updates
10:30 – 10:45am Break
10:45 – 11:15am Trends in Current CBAs
11:15am – Noon Legislative Update
Noon – 1:00pm Lunch
1:00 – 200pm Onboarding
2:00pm Wrap Up and Closing Discussions

25. OUTLINE OF TOPICS Collective Bargaining Updates
Trends at the Negotiating Table
Legislative Updates

26. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Waiving the Special Magistrate
Refusal to Ratify/Self-Help
Surveying Employees for Evaluations
Financial Urgency
Collective Bargaining Tips

27. Waiving the Special Magistrate
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Waiving the Special Magistrate

28. The Special Magistrate
Impasse Process
The Special Magistrate
To Use or Not to Use?
Parties may agree to waive the Special Magistrate Hearing
Proceed directly to a hearing before the legislative body
Both parties must agree
Must be in writing

29. The Special Magistrate
Impasse Process
The Special Magistrate
To Use or Not to Use?
Reasons to bypass Special Magistrate
Cost
Time
Number of Issues Involved
Political Reasons
Employer’s best interest is to bypass Special Magistrate in most cases
Difficult to get union to agree

30. The Special Magistrate
Impasse Process
The Special Magistrate
To Use or Not to Use?
Reasons not to bypass Special Magistrate
Special Magistrate’s Recommendation may be helpful:
Neutral perspective
Public perception
Bargaining unit employees
Legislative body
May narrow issues

31. Changing Proposals at Impasse

32. Changing Proposals at Impasse
Issue: Can you change or introduce new proposals at impasse?
Port Orange I – Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118 v. City of Port Orange, 37 FPER 99 (2011), aff’d per curiam, 86 So.3d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)

33. PORT ORANGE I
Facts
Parties were negotiating a successor agreement, and the City was seeking to reduce its pension costs
Reached an agreement, but it was not ratified by the Union
Parties resumed negotiations – the City realized it could not impose pension increases without employee agreement, so it proposed a 6% wage reduction instead
City declared impasse over several articles including Wages and Pensions
At the Special Magistrate hearing, the City proposed, for the first time, to reduce starting and top out pay by 6%

34. PORT ORANGE I
Facts
Parties filed several ULPs against each other, including several issues
In part, the Union alleged that (1) the City unlawfully substituted a 6% wage reduction in lieu of pension contribution increases and (2) unlawfully proposed a 6% decrease in starting pay and top out pay for the first time at the special magistrate hearing
Hearing Officer concluded that it was not unlawful to propose a 6% wage reduction in lieu of the pension reform, but the City committed a ULP by proposing the 6% decrease in starting and top out pay for the first time at the hearing

35. PORT ORANGE I
Outcome
PERC ruled that the 6% reduction in starting and top out pay was not a ULP because the parties are allowed to change their positions at any point during impasse provided that the amended proposals do not touch on a topic that was not previously negotiated at the bargaining table
PERC affirmed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that proposing a 6% wage reduction in lieu of a pension contribution increase was not unlawful
The First DCA affirmed per curiam

36. Refuse to Ratify / Self-Help

37. REFUSE TO RATIFY / SELF-HELP
Issue: Union refuses to ratify
Port Orange II – City of Port Orange v. Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118, 38 FPER 244 (2011)
Daytona Beach Fire Rescue Local 1162, IAFF v. City of Daytona Beach, 39 FPER 28 (2012), aff’d per curiam, 121 So.3d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)

38. PORT ORANGE II
Facts
After PERC issued its order in Port Orange I, the City revised its proposed impasse agreement to the Union for ratification
The Union refused to sign and submit for ratification, claiming confusing over the effective date of the 6% wage reduction

39. The Unfair Labor Practice Charge
PORT ORANGE II
The Unfair Labor Practice Charge
The City filed a ULP alleging that it was unlawful for the Union to refuse to sign and submit the agreement for ratification
The Hearing Officer found that the Union’s refusal was unlawful
PERC affirmed, citing to City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Municipal Employees, Local 2432, AFSCME, 468 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) that the purpose of Section (4)(e), Florida Statutes, is to bring collective bargaining to an end at a point certain

40. DAYTONA BEACH
Facts
Negotiation for a successor agreement were unsuccessful for three years in a row, the parties maintained status quo
The City declared impasse and the parties went to a Special Magistrate hearing
Union accepted recommendations on all issues, and the City rejected the recommendations on 4 issues
City Council unanimously accepted the City’s position on all remaining disputed issues

41. DAYTONA BEACH
Facts
City sent the agreement to the Union, including the agreed upon issues and legislatively resolved issues
The letter said that the Union’s failure to sign and return would be considered a refusal to send the agreement to ratification
Union did not sign or return
City implemented the agreement without a ratification vote

42. The Unfair Labor Practice
DAYTONA BEACH
The Unfair Labor Practice
The Union filed a ULP alleging that the City bargained in bad faith by imposing the legislatively resolved impasse issues without a ratification vote
Hearing Officer held that the City’s sole remedy was to file an unfair labor practice and the City could not engage in self-help or establish a time limit for the Union’s ratification

43. DAYTONA BEACH Final Order
Reversed the Hearing Officer and held that a local government is “authorized to implement those legislatively resolved wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment for its employees represented by a union after a special magistrate proceeding when the union refuses to submit to the employees for ratification a signed copy of a complete agreement containing the resolved articles and the tentative agreements.”
PERC receded from its “overly broad” comments in Communications Workers of America, Local 3170 v. City of Gainesville, 20 FPER (1994) that “a ratification vote is a condition precedent to implementation of legislatively resolved impasse issues.”

44. DAYTONA BEACH
Outcome
This achieved legislative intent that “lack of final resolution of a bargaining impasse… creates potential turmoil” and that the impasse procedure was designed by the Legislature “to provide an end to a potentially endless bargaining process.” City of Hollywood
Limitation – Self-Help when the Union refuses to ratify
Affirmed per curiam by the Fifth DCA

45. The Ruse

46. THE RUSE
Issue: Union agrees to adverse proposals to remove them from the impasse process
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1593 v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, 39 FPER 175 (2012), on appeal docketed at 2D (Fla. 2nd DCA)
Naples I - Professional Firefighters of Naples, I.A.F.F. v. City of Naples, 39 FPER 329 (2013), aff’d per curiam, unpublished at 2013 WL (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013)
Communications Workers of America v. School District of Indian River County, 40 FPER 32 (2013)

47. ATU v. HART
FACTS
The parties began negotiating a successor agreement in June 2010 for a contract that expired in September 2010
After 8 months of negotiations, HART declared impasse on six articles
The parties went to a Special Magistrate hearing – recommendations were mostly favorable to the Union
The Union accepted all six recommendations, HART accepted three and rejected three others

48. ATU v. HART FACTS Scheduled a Legislative Body hearing
Immediately prior to hearing, the Union’s attorney told HART it would agree to its proposals on the remaining issues, did not sign any TA but told the legislative body that they had reached a tentative agreement
Union conducted ratification vote – contract not ratified
HART re-scheduled the legislative body hearing, Union claimed they had to return to bargaining accoding to Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1701 v. Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36 FPER 453 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
HART conducted legislative body hearing, Union did not attend and HART imposed all 6 issues, Union refused to send to ratification

49. The Unfair Labor Practice Charges
ATU v. HART
The Unfair Labor Practice Charges
Union filed ULP alleging that HART bargained in bad faith by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed ratification vote, by conducting a legislative body hearing instead, and by implementing the articles resolved at the hearing
HART filed ULP alleging that the Union committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to conduct a ratification vote

50. Hearing Officer’s Order
ATU v. HART
Hearing Officer’s Order
HART committed unfair labor practice because it bargained in bad faith by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed ratification vote, by conducting a legislative body hearing instead, and by implementing the articles resolved at the hearing
Hearing Officer relied on Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1701 v. Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36 FPER 453 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) – when the agreement was not ratified, the parties were required to resume bargaining
Union did not commit an unfair labor practice by refusing to conduct a ratification vote

51. ATU v. HART PERC Final Order
Sarasota was not applicable – in Sarasota, parties were ordered back to bargaining because of confusion over what issues were at impasse, no confusion in this case – here there was no confusion, so there was no need to resume bargaining
Relied on City of Hollywood – The purpose of the impasse resolution process is to bring collective bargaining to a conclusion
Requiring the parties to return to bargaining would lead to a never ending cycle of negotiations
Because the Union refused to submit the agreement to ratification, HART could engage in self-help and implement the agreement

52. ATU v. HART PERC Final Order
HART did not commit an unfair labor practice
The Union did not commit an unfair labor practice – no allegation of improper motive
Pending on appeal in the Second DCA

53. NAPLES I
FACTS
In IAFF v. Naples, the parties began negotiating a successor agreement in June 2011 for a contract expiring in September 2011
After 13 bargaining sessions, the parties reached impasse on two issues: pension reform & safety/health article
Union refused to agree to pension reform, City would not agree to proposed changes to safety/health article
During negotiations, City offered wage increase and holiday pay to entice Union to agree

54. NAPLES I
FACTS
City’s position at impasse was more drastic cuts than proposed during negotiations and did not include a wage increase or holiday pay
Union refused all the way up to the Special Magistrate Hearing
After City’s presentation at the Special Magistrate Hearing, the Union suddenly agreed to City’s pension proposal – did not condition its acceptance on wages or holiday pay
The City refused to accept the Union’s purported “Agreement”

55. The Unfair Labor Practice Charges
NAPLES I
The Unfair Labor Practice Charges
Union filed ULP alleging that City bargained in bad faith by rejecting its own proposal
City filed ULP alleging that the Union bargained in bad faith because its intent in agreeing to the City’s proposal was not to reach an agreement, but instead to derail the impasse resolution process, avoid imposition of pension reform, and perpetuate the status quo

56. NAPLES I The Outcome Union bargained in bad faith
“In sum, Local 2174’s motivation in accepting the City’s pension proposal was to remove the City’s proposed pension plan from the impasse resolution process. Local 2174’s motivation was not to reach an accord with the City. Rather, Local 2174’s purpose in agreeing with the pension plan was to derail the impasse resolution process and perpetuate the status quo.”
Union “knew or should have known that the employees will not ratify the contract based on their self-interest.”
“This one instance of bad faith so permeated the entire process that it rendered the impasse resolution process meaningless.”

57. NAPLES I The Outcome City did not bargain in bad faith
Because the Union acted in bad faith by purportedly accepting the City’s proposal, the parties remained at impasse and the City did not act unlawfully by continuing the impasse resolution process.
“The City assumed the risk that it was acting lawfully when it rejected Local 2174’s acceptance of the pension proposal.”
Second DCA affirmed per curiam

58. INDIAN RIVER
Facts
Parties reached impasse over health insurance - two days before the hearing, the Union agreed to the District’s proposal
The Special Magistrate hearing was cancelled, but the ratification vote failed by a vote of 226 to 3
The District resumed the impasse process via ATU v. HART and returned to the Special Magistrate hearing, but the Union refused to participate

59. The Unfair Labor Practice
INDIAN RIVER
The Unfair Labor Practice
The parties filed several unfair labor practices against each other
The District alleged that the Union unlawfully agreed to the District’s insurance proposal as a ruse to thwart the collective bargaining process and intentionally avoid finality in negotiations
Union alleged that District was required to resume bargaining, not return to point of impasse after the failed ratification vote (Sarasota)

60. INDIAN RIVER
Outcome
The Hearing Officer concluded that the Union unlawfully agreed to the District’s insurance proposal to thwart the bargaining process
“The CWA agreed to the District’s health insurance proposal knowing with virtual certainty that the unit employees would not ratify the proposal and with the intent of avoiding finality in the bargaining process and extending the status quo indefinitely. This conduct constitutes a failure to bargain in good faith because it makes a mockery of the impasse resolution process and renders it meaningless.”
Also reiterated that Parties may return to point of impasse after failed ratification (ATU v. HART)
PERC affirmed

61. OTHER CASES
City of Hialeah v. International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1102, 38 FPER 111 (2011)
After over two years of negotiations and impasse proceedings, a Special Magistrate sided with the City on every issue at impasse, but the Union did not file any rejections. Ratification failed by a vote of 177 to 1 and after ULP proceedings concluding the Union had not bargained in bad faith, the parties were forced to go back to negotiations.

62. OTHER CASES
International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 2622 v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 39 FPER 283 (2013)
Over the course of negotiations, the City declared impasse three times, and each of the first two times, the Union “accepted” the City’s proposal before the special magistrate, and the agreement was overwhelmingly rejected by the bargaining unit.
After the third time, both parties filed ULPs.
PERC held that the Union did not bargain in bad faith, but took note of its recent statement in ATU v. HART and cautioned that its dismissal of this case should not be read “to countenance a never-ending cycle of negotiations.”
It’s decision was based on a lack of evidence showing bad faith.

63. OTHER CASES
Naples II – Professional Fire Fighters of Naples, IAFF, Local 2174 v. City of Naples, CA (January 13, 2014) (not final)
After first ULP hearing, the Special Magistrate issued an order recommending the City’s position on the pension issue because the Union had not made a presentation.
Anticipating that the Union would not reject the Special Magistrate’s recommendation, and because the Union’s position remained unclear after additional negotiations, the City rejected the recommendation of its own position to give the Union an opportunity to present its position to the legislative body.
The Hearing Officer found that the City’s rejection demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds and was not unlawful.

64. Employee Communication The Fine Line of Direct Dealing
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Employee Communication The Fine Line of Direct Dealing

65. SURVEYING EMPLOYEES
A public employer commits an unfair labor practice if it negotiates directly with the bargaining unit employees.
“Direct dealing” is prohibited because it can undermine the exclusive status of the employee organization.
What about seeking faculty input on the criteria for the award of continuing contracts?

66. SURVEYING EMPLOYEES
PERC does allow employers to communicate with employees so long as such expression contains no promise of benefit or threat of reprisal or force. See (3), F.S.
The communication with employees must be informational only.
Ask whether the communication has the effect of enlisting employees to withdraw or abandon their support of the certified bargaining agent.

67. SURVEYING EMPLOYEES You decide – Ok to seek faculty input?
Compare Duval Teachers United v. School District of Duval County, 36 FPER 62 (2010)
Superintendent ed a survey to all District employees, including unit members, asking their opinion on how District should prioritize potential budget cuts.
PERC ruled that communication was lawful.
Requested information. Did not request union members to bargain with Superintendent instead of Union.

68. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
FINANCIAL URGENCY

69. FINANCIAL URGENCY
First DCA and Fourth DCA Clash over Standard Applied to Establish Financial Urgency
City of Miami,118 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
City of Hollywood, -- So. 3d – (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 8, 2014)

70. FINANCIAL URGENCY
Debate Over the Second Prong of the Chiles Test  Authority of gov’t to modify a contract and violate the union’s right to collectively bargain
First DCA – Local gov’t not required to demonstrate that funds are not available from any other possible source
Fourth DCA – Claimed First DCA modified Chiles test. District court cannot modify Fla. Supreme Court holding.

71. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES
Bargaining Tips

72. BARGAINING TIPS Package Proposals Ratification Letter (Daytona Beach)
During Negotiations
Throughout Impasse Process
Ratification Letter (Daytona Beach)
Require response
Set deadline
Self-help if Union refuses to conduct ratification
Return to point of impasse after failed ratification (Port Orange, HART)

73. BARGAINING TIPS
Do not accept a bad faith acceptance (Naples, Indian River)
Rejecting your own proposal (Naples 2)
If Union will not reject an adverse recommendation
Very limited circumstances – works better with a package proposal
Change position at impasse (Port Orange, Naples)
Rescind concessions
One year contract

74. Trends at the Table CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Bonus Payments After the Revision to Section , F.S.
Retirement and Pension
Cost of Health Insurance
Evaluation Programs

75. Trends at the Table Release Time for Union Activity
CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Trends at the Table
Limits on the Ability to Grieve
Release Time for Union Activity
Overtime and Additional Pay
Promotion for the At-Will

76. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES “Student Success Act” – SB 736
Proposed Legislative Budget Request
DOMA and Windsor v. US

77. “Student Success Act” LEGISLATIVE UPDATES Senate Bill 736
Comprehensive overhaul of K-12 education
Applicable to DRS Schools

78. STUDENT SUCCESS ACT Sweeping reforms
Teachers evaluated on a scale of four performance levels (highly effective, effective, needs improvement, unsatisfactory)
At least half of evaluation based on student learning growth
Eliminated tenure, annual contracts only

79. Six individuals filed a constitutional challenge to the law Arguments
Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526 (Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
Six individuals filed a constitutional challenge to the law
Arguments
(1) Facially unconstitutional infringement on collective bargaining rights
(2) Unlawfully delegates legislative authority to the State Board of Education to define the numerical scores representing the four performance levels

80. Oral argument is scheduled for March 25, 2014
Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526 (Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
Result?
Leon County Circuit Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments and upheld law as constitutional
Plaintiffs’ appealed
Appeal limited to unlawful delegation argument
Oral argument is scheduled for March 25, 2014

81. Pay Increases for Faculty & Staff
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
Pay Increases for Faculty & Staff
Legislative Appropriation 1950A
Base Salary lesser than $40,000  $1,400 Raise
Base Salary greater than $40,000  $1,000 Raise

82. PAY INCREASES
Additionally, in June of 2014, $600 bonus available to employees from special Legislative appropriation
Top 35% of eligible permanent employees
Baseline requirements – Section (2) Florida Statutes
Employed prior to July 1 of that year
Employed for 6 consecutives months
No sustained disciplinary actions in past year

83. DOMA LEGISLATIVE UPDATES United States v. Windsor (June 26, 3013)
Issue: Constitutionality of DOMA’s provision denying federal benefits to same-sex partners.
State Law Determines Benefits

84. DOMA & DOMESTIC PARTNERS
Origin of Domestic Partner Benefit Plans
Windsor’s Impact
Wal-Mart Will Offer Domestic Partner Benefits
Future Still Unclear

85. Thank You!!! Michael Mattimore, Esq. 906 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(850)

86. Break for Lunch

87. What's in it for YOU! - Electronic Onboarding
Melissa Curry
Director
Recruitment & Staffing

88. Agenda Impact of Electronic Onboarding Avoiding Risk
Gaining Efficiencies
Improving Brand Image
University of Florida – GatorStart
Key Drivers
Value Gained
A Look at the Electronic Process
Support of Legislative Updates
Challenges with Remote Employees
Support of Foreign Nationals
Impact on the University

89. Impact of Electronic Onboarding

90. Reduced Risk
Rapidly Changing Environment & Growing Complex Legislation
Compliance with Federal Requirements
Increasingly High Fines
Proper Documentation Management of Foreign Nationals
Short Staffed & Improperly Trained Staff Results in Errors, Incomplete or Not Retained Critical Documents
© Equifax Confidential and Proprietary

91. Inefficiencies- Manual Onboarding
Applicant accepts job offer
Information is manually entered
New hire completes paperwork onsite or mails back
Location collects the completed forms
Manually enter data into payroll and other HR system
Hard copy is saved and appropriate copies given to new hire
Corporate HR is hopeful that compliance is not an issue…
Manager reviews all documentation
New hire packet is assembled
Packet is mailed or delivered on first day
If error
Manual Onboarding

92. Improved Efficiencies- Electronic Onboarding
A new hire packet is electronically created pre-populated with new hire data.
New hire completes documentation quickly
on-line and can print “smart forms”
Data is automatically checked for completeness and accuracy. Electronically stored and data exported into appropriate HR systems.
Applicant accepts job offer. Data is sent to Onboarding Solution.

93. Improved Brand Image
Reduction in time spent on manual processes allows for more focused attention on employee socialization, which may increase retention.
90% of organizations believe employees make decision to stay based on impression of the company in the first year.  
Aberdeen Research 2011
2013 Aberdeen Group

94. University of Florida – GatorStart
CUPA-HR 2012HR Innovation Award
Awarded to innovations that advance and contribute to the overall excellence of the HR Profession.
2013 Davis Productivity Award
Awarded to state employees and work units for innovation, creativity, and work product that significantly increases productivity in the delivery of state services and products
University of Florida’s GatorStart Project TeamReceives CUPA-HR’s HR Innovation Award
University of Florida’s GatorStart project team received the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) 2012 HR Innovation Award. This award honors a team’s or an individual’s demonstrated human resource innovation. The innovation can be technological in nature, based in process improvement, a novel partnership that advances the profession, or a new approach to an HR department’s current challenge, but most important, it must advance the human resource profession or contribute to the overall excellence of the profession. Thanks to the generous support of Ellucian, CUPA-HR is pleased to offer a $3,000 contribution to an endowment or scholarship at the University of Florida.
Looking for a way to reduce lates hires, improve compliance and leverage technology to create a state of the art onboarding process, University of Florida’s recruitment and staffing team, enterprise systems staff, the training and organizational development team and an outside vendor partnered to create GatorStart. This comprehensive, multimedia, online onboarding process includes a welcome video, an “introduction to UF” video and a “final instructions and what happens next” video, as well as a website with helpful resources. GatrorStart also enables a new hire and his or her hiring manager to complete all the necessary forms and paperwork online, including the I9, W-4, direct deposit, intellectual property agreement, EEO and veteran’s surveys, loyalty oath and more. However, GatorStart is not a one-size-fits-all approach — onboarding is specialized and tailored for each employee based on his or her employee group.
GatorStart has served to not only get new employees hired faster, but also to improve their first impressions of the university and provide them with helpful information regarding their first day of employment. “The feedback on GatorStart has been overwhelmingly positive,” says Melissa Curry, director of recruitment and staffing at University of Florida. “The new hires appreciate the ease of use and love the fact that they can complete their paperwork online from anywhere in the world in less than 10 minutes. The biggest win, for me, is being able to improve compliance while making the onboarding process meaningful for new hires and decreasing the workload of the hiring managers.”

95. About the University of Florida:
Major research university enrolling 50,000 students
26,000 employees
10,000 new hires annually
Employees located in every state, however, 95% of employees are located in Gainesville, FL
Central HR staff of 85
Decentralized with approval workflows
PeopleSoft 9.1

96. Key Drivers Leading to an Electronic Process
Introduction of the electronic I-9 segmented the hiring process so UF continued completing the paper form.
Implementation of E-Verify forced reconsideration but still looking for a comprehensive onboarding process.
Then we were introduced to Equifax Workforce Solutions electronic onboarding.

97. Value Gained With an Electronic Process
Original project plan included converting payroll forms to an online system to improve the time from offer to paycheck for our new employees.
During planning, the project team saw an opportunity to leverage technology.
State of the art onboarding process.
Improve their first impressions of the university and provide them with helpful information regarding their first day of employment.
Goal was to work with Training and Organizational Development to create a multi-tiered onboarding process.
© Equifax Confidential and Proprietary

98. Let’s walk through the process…
New Screen Shots
Let’s walk through the process…

99. New Screen Shots

100. New Screen Shots

101. New Screen Shots

102. New Screen Shots
I would like to highlight this page because one of the greatest aspects about the Onboarding System is that it is configurable based on employee type. This is a Benefits and Retirement Information page to provide information as well as important deadlines for action. We have about 20 employee types with different combinations of benefits and retirement. Additionally, it allows you to customize you’re the forms for each employee type. For instance, we have additional forms regarding outside activities and intellectual property.

103. New Screen Shots

104. New Screen Shots  

105. Our vision continues to evolve…..

106. New Legislation Quickly Supported in an Electronic Process
ACA Notifications
All New Hires within 14 Days of Start
Unique Delivery Requirements
503 Self-Identification
Government Contractors
Pre-Hire & New Hire after March 2014
All employees by March 2015
Every 5 Years

107. Challenges with Remote Employees
Growing number of remote employees
Growing enrollment through online courses
More telecommuters
Access to computers
Addition of Extension Campuses

108. Support of Foreign Nationals
“SSN Applied for State”
Breaks Automated Processes
Electronic Process Manages the Exceptions

109. Positive Impact on the Organization New hires love it!
Ease of use and online paperwork completed in 10 to 15 minutes on average.
“Smart” Forms eliminate paperwork errors.
Workload reduction for hiring managers and HR.
Improved I-9 and E-Verify compliance--slowly.
Ability to engage employee in our culture and community from the start.
Average time saved per hire is 1.5 hours with an estimated salary savings of $360,000 annually.
*1.5 hours per $24 per hour, 10,000 hires annually

110. Wrap Up and Closing Discussions