Page images
PDF
EPUB

is limited by the demands of other agencies. Other agencies are currently free to satisfy their requirements from other sources.

Unfortunately, while beneficial to the NLRB, the total dollar amount of reimbursements, which peaked last year at about $600,000, is far too small to make a significant difference in our ability to address other priorities such as automation and Regional Office staff. Any effort to address those priorities will require a long-term planned investment of several million dollars. Accordingly, our funding request for Fiscal Year 1992 addresses these priorities in the proper context.

I

FUTURE CASELOAD FORECAST

Question. Certainly recent events such as the Greyhound and New York News strikes have contributed to an increased workload in many of your regional field offices. also understand that a suit brought by the American Hospital Association concerning the definition of collective bargaining units is pending before the Supreme Court. This decision could greatly affect the union activities of workers in the health care industry when it is decided this spring. What is the potential impact of this

decision on the Board's future caseload?

1991.

Answer. The Supreme Court's decision on the Board's health care rules was handed down on April 23, It upheld the Board's rules. Under the Final Rule approved by the Board, by the Board, there will be eight appropriate bargaining units for employees employed by acute care hospitals. According to the Service Employees International Union, 3.5 million or 46 percent of the health care employees employed in the private sector work in an acute care institution. According to the New York Times, "fewer than 20 percent of the country's 3.6 million hospital workers belong to unions." (April 24, Thus, it is anticipated that this rule will substantial number of the health care employees under our jurisdiction. It is difficult, accurately predict what impact this Final Rule on our case intake.

1991, p1) affect a that are however, to will have

On March 12, 1991, the Wall Street Journal quoted one labor law attorney's prediction that a "firestorm" of hospital organizing cases will follow a decision approving the Final Rule. When the decision issued, Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was quoted in the New York Times (April 24, 1991) as saying that his union would be "stepping up [its] health care organizing to reach every hospital worker all across the country. Representatives of labor and management, and other commentators have also predicted a dramatic increase in union organizing drives if the Final Rule is sustained. Their general consensus is that the Final Rule will make it easier for unions organize workers employed in acute care institutions.

"

to

With an increase in the filing of representation petitions, and possibly in the number of organized employers in the health care industry, it is anticipated that related unfair labor practice cases will also be filed.

Question. Does your 1992 request include additional resources to deal with this possible influx of cases?

Answer. The FY 1992 appropriation request does not include additional resources for an influx of cases resulting from the favorable Supreme Court decision on the proposed rules for bargaining units in the health care industry. It is not known at this moment what the specific impact may be; however, all indications are that an increase in representation cases is likely to occur.

to

It is also likely that additional unfair labor practice (ULP) charges will result from these organizing campaigns. Presently, the NLRB has no means by which estimate the number of ULP charges which will result from organizing in the health care industry.

as

We have made no estimate of cases and any additional resources needed to process the expected increase in health care cases. We have concentrated our efforts in securing sufficient resources to handle our current caseload. It is important that we remain as current possible and avoid any backlogs because the expected influx of cases will come all at once and we will be backlogged for a period of time. We have not been able to adequately define resource needs with respect to the possible influx of cases. Should the influx be heavy, we undoubtedly will have the need for additional staff.

CASE PROCESSING

Question. What is your current case backlog?

Answer. The Board's pending caseload as of April 1, 1991, was 351 unfair labor practice cases and 105 representation cases for a total of 456 cases. This contrasts with the peak caseload of 1,647 cases on February 1, 1984. On April 1, 1988, the pending caseload was 767; on April 1, 1989, 690; and on April 1, 1990, 511. Thus, the caseload is at its lowest point in many years.

The GAO report confirmed that Board Member turnover and Board vacancies had a disruptive impact on the Board's decision-making process. The report confirmed that the Board has made progress over the last several years in reducing both its backlog and the median time for disposing of cases. The GAO report suggested and the Board agrees that there is still room for improvement for managing the flow of cases at the Board.

[ocr errors]

-

The extended median processing time characteristic of the mid-1980's was a result of the extraordinary backlog which resulted (as GAO confirmed) from Board Member turnover and vacancies. The Board, now at full strength, has been reducing not only its backlog but its median time for reaching decisions.

Attached for enclosure in the record is a copy of our comments on the GAO Draft (which was included in the Final Report).

Report

Question. What strategy do you have for further reducing it?

Answer. In order to focus Board attention on cases well before their second anniversary, the Board has added new component to its case management system: a "6-6-6" trigger

a

matters

for directly involving the Board Members in that may be emerging as problem cases. If the

Board's case management system has not moved a case from one stage to the next in six months' time, it is being flagged for action by all the Board Members.

Of course, no one believes that two years is an acceptable time for issuance of Board decisions, and every effort will be made to reduce the time, if possible even to six months. More More frequent meetings of Board Members have been held and have been scheduled for six months in advance; special meetings have been held to focus on the oldest cases; there has been renewed emphasis by Board Members on case monitoring reports; and there has been renewed emphasis on special expedited procedures in routine cases. For example, a new procedure instituted to expedite some kinds of summary-judgment cases has reduced the time from receipt to issuance of Board decision from 134 days to 37 days.

I am attaching for enclosure in the record a copy_of our report dated March 6, 1991, to the Honorable Tom Lantos, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Housing of the House Committee on Government Operations, which is the committee which requested the GAO Study.

BOARD ACTION ON "LEAD" CASES

Question. What plan does the Board have to decide these "lead" cases in a more timely manner?

Answer. The Board's delay in deciding cases that are precedent-setting (i.e., lead cases) was a direct result of Board Member turnover and vacancies in the 1980's.

In September 1990, the Board had five fully confirmed Board Members for the first time in almost three years. This stability in Board membership has allowed the Board to concentrate on reducing its pending caseload in general. However, unlike the period 1981-1985 where the Board was embarked on a broad-ranging re-examination of fundamental labor-law policies with a large number of potential lead cases resulting. The Board today is not engaged in such a review and therefore has fewer "lead cases." Therefore, the delay effect to which GAO alluded in its references to "lead cases" does not exist today. The Board has set for itself the goal of having no case more than two years old as of September 1991. There were 300 such cases in July 1987. As of today that number has been reduced to 12. Twenty-seven more would become two years old between now and September 30, 1991, but Board anticipates that all will have been issued by that

date.

RENT INCREASE

the

Question. What is the reason for this significant increase in 1992?

Answer. About half of the $3 million increase will be needed to fund the increased cost of space for the NLRB Washington Headquarters. The lease on our current space has expired. Because the existing building is old, does not have sufficient sprinklers, and uses asbestos insulation, GSA has determined that NLRB Headquarters should be relocated to a more safe facility. The cost per square foot of such space within the District of Columbia will be significantly higher than at the current location.

that

The balance of the increase will fund rate increases will result from either relocation or renegotiation of leases for seven field offices whose leases have expired as well as the cost of annual rate adjustments at other existing locations.

AUTOMATION PLAN

Question. Can you describe the benefit of this automation system in terms of reducing the case backlog and streamlining your staffing requirements?

Answer. The new automation system would greatly enhance the productivity and timeliness of the NLRB caseload. At the present time our field office staff has fewer than one PC for each three employees. of all the Agency's PCs, 70 percent are first generation. About 40 percent of all the Agency's PCs are over five years old. Only Headquarters has a sophisticated PC network and even here most of the fileservers are operating at capacity. We were not surprised that the consultant found that 70 percent of field staff had to wait two hours for access to a PC. In fact, in many offices employees have simply purchased their own PCs and brought them into the office. Much of our software is one release or more behind.

in

The work of the NLRB is to enforce the law. This is a paper intensive and research intensive task. It is impossible to sustain high productivity when both document preparation and research automation are inadequate. The few PCs that the Agency has been able to acquire over the last several years have allowed a large reduction clerical support staffing, but has had only a negligible impact on professional staff productivity. There simply is not enough equipment and virtually no resources have been spent on training. The Agency believes that increased expenditures on ADP equipment will further enhance our word processing capability, dramatically improve our legal research capability, and improve general Agency efficiency through better case management software, electronic mail and various administrative applications which are mostly now on hold.

Question.

Did you request funding for this automation plan in your budget submission to OMB? Answer. Yes, the NLRB has tried to secure funding for several years now. The consultant's report, completed in August 1989, was an effort to bolster the Agency's description of its ADP requirement.

The budget submission to OMB for the past several years has requested funds for automation. However, our first priority has usually been to have adequate staff to handle the caseload rather than to purchase automation equipment.

Question. What is the consultant's current estimate for the first year phase-in of the three-year systems upgrade?

Answer. Approximately $7,414,000. The second and third years were estimated at approximately $5,643,000 and $5,620,000, respectively. These estimates date from August 1989. Certain equipment prices have declined, but increases in technical support costs offset this and the estimates are still satisfactory.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. DOYLE III, INSPECTOR GENERAL

BUDGET REQUEST

Senator HARKIN. And now back to Railroad Retirement Board. We will hear from the Inspector General, Mr. William Doyle. Obviously independent oversight of the railroad, maintains and protect the integrity of the trust funds. The 1992 request for this office is $7.7 million, an increase of $1.8 million over last year.

Mr. Doyle, welcome to the subcommittee. Again, your statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety, and if you could summarize it, it would be appreciated.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, good morning. My name is William J. Doyle III, and I am the inspector general of the Railroad Retirement Board, and I will be brief.

I would like to submit my testimony for the record, and briefly highlight our priorities for fiscal year 1992.

Senator HARKIN. Without objection.

Mr. DOYLE. First I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your committee, for the continued support of the Office of Inspector General. In addition, I want to publicly thank, on the occasion of our fifth year in existence, my Office of Inspector General staff for obtaining approximately $800 million in cost savings through their professional and aggressive efforts, and nearly 270 criminal convictions. Within the past 15 months, we have recovered $410 million, with 133 criminal convictions and 85 indictments.

It is a record of achievement that I, as the Inspector General, am proud to report to this committee. These are results that demonstrate a cost-effective utilization of the resources your committee has provided to us. And now, in fiscal year 1992, we fully support the President's budget request of $7,700,000, and 119 full-timeequivalent [FTE] positions for the Office of Inspector General.

One of our main audit priorities will be to work in tandem with the Chairman and Board members to improve those program areas where the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Railroad Retirement Board Office of Inspector General have identified management weaknesses. We shall monitor, assist, and inform the Chairman, the OMB, and this committee on the Railroad Retirement Board's progress as it begins to implement the necessary measures to improve our agency's operations.

We will continue our payroll tax compliance spot check audits of railroad employers, even though a number of rail employers are now questioning the Office of Inspector General's audit authority to conduct these types of audit. This is the type of audit that we have been undertaking during the past year.

« PreviousContinue »