The purpose of both factfinding to settle a negotiations impasse and arbitration to settle a grievance is to present the evidence necessary to resolve the conflict between union and management. The author of this paper, himself a factfinder and arbitrator, lists tactics and practices that impede the efficient collection of evidence in factfinding. First, endless debate over the negotiability of items wastes time and engenders bad feeling. Tripartite factfinding panels augment the costs and reduce the impact of the factfinding process. The failure by one side to respond to arguments raised by the other weakens the process as a whole. Negotiators for union and management should work on settlement of their disputes before going to factfinding. To improve the effectiveness of case presentation in arbitration, the negotiator/lawyer should adequately develop his evidence and arguments, should be prepared to argue his case orally and not rely solely on written posthearing briefs, and should not consider the presentation of alternative positions an admission of guilt. The arbitration process is much smoother if both parties can agree on undisputed facts and on the issue before the hearing. (Author/DS)