UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
National Labor Relations Board
Office of Inspector General
March 16, 2000
To: Harding Darden, Chief, Budget Branch
From: Jane E. Altenhofen, Inspector General
Subject: Inspection Report No. OIG-INS-05-00-02: Update of Results Act Implementation
We initiated this inspection in November 1999 to evaluate the adequacy of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Agency) plans and preparations for measuring performance in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act). We specifically reviewed the Agency's ability to accurately report on the performance measures and the achievement of its goals to date.
We found that some goals were not defined or expressed as tangible, measurable objectives. Support was missing or not readily available for some performance measures. A revised performance plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 was not prepared in a timely or clear manner. The results in the draft performance reports did not include specific data on some measures or comments necessary for readers to understand the data, most significantly, that substantial periods of time or cases were excluded from the results.
A draft inspection report was distributed on January 24, 2000 to all Agency officials participating in the development of the strategic plan, annual performance plans, or the performance report for discussion at an Agency strategic planning seminar. A revised draft was distributed on February 4, 2000, for review and comment.
Scope
We interviewed staff in the Budget Branch, Office of Administration, who coordinate preparation of strategic planning documents. We also interviewed Agency officials identified as being responsible for reporting on a performance measure. We obtained reports prepared by the Information Technology Branch (ITB) and examined documents maintained by offices relevant to the performance measures.
We reviewed the Results Act, and related correspondence from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Criteria from OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 2, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports is shaded in the body of this report. We used a guide issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) entitled An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20, dated April 1998), and reviewed various other GAO reports on the Results Act.
Background
The Results Act required all government agencies to develop and submit a strategic plan to Congress by September 30, 1997, for the six-year period ending September 30, 2002. No later than March 31, 2000, for FY 1999 (October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999) and annually thereafter, agencies must prepare and submit a report on program performance for the previous FY.
The Agency prepared a Strategic Plan for FYs 1997 - 2002, an Annual Performance Plan for FY 1999 (FY 1999 Plan), and an Annual Performance Plan for FY 2000 (FY 2000 Plan). These documents were completed at the same time as the Agency's budget submission, in approximately March of 1997, 1998, and 1999 respectively. The Strategic Plan had eight sections: the mission statement; statutory structure; environment; input from stakeholders; four goals; objectives, strategies and performance measures for each goal; external factors; and program evaluation. The annual performance plans addressed the statutory structure; and objectives, strategies and performance measures for each goal.
Beginning in November 1999, the Budget Branch began to circulate drafts of the FY 1999 Performance Report for review and comment. The Performance Report was based on revised performance measures for FY 1999 set forth in the FY 2000 Plan. We used the draft performance report dated January 10, 2000, which identified 48 performance measures as the basis for comments in this report. Using the Strategic Plan and annual plans, we restated the performance measures in a consistent manner, as shown in the attachments to this report, to use in our evaluation. The performance measures, which were numbered chronologically by goal, are identified in parentheses when discussed as a specific finding or example (i.e. 1-2 is goal one, the second performance measure).
220.9 Performance Measure. An annual performance plan must include performance goals that shall be defined either in an objective and quantifiable manner, or as sufficiently precise descriptive statements that allow an accurate, independent determination to be made of actual performance. Performance goals usually have a numerical target level or other measurable value.
We found that most of the 48 performance measures for FY 1999 met the OMB definition. About a third of the performance measures (16 - see Attachment 1) were not tangible, measurable objectives expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate. In goals 1 and 2, six performance measures were either ongoing responsibilities (i.e. evaluate work quality) or one-time projects (i.e. revise a manual). None of the ten measures in goal 3 were precise descriptive statements sufficient to allow measurement.
Goal 3 pertained to the agency workforce. The performance measures were broad objectives, primarily to provide training. Three performance measures on employee details included quantities that we did not consider to be sufficiently precise because the numbers were qualified by the words "up to." To be sufficiently precise, performance measures must clearly specify the training and the audience. For example, a performance measure to "have all attorneys hired during the fiscal year attend an Agency-sponsored introductory course" could be supported by statistics on the number of hires and training records.
Consideration should be given as to whether goal 3 with ten performance measures should be retained in its present form. According to OMB guidance, agency-wide goals, such as these on the workforce, can be included in the agency plan, but should be few in number, key to program accomplishment, and where possible, presented with the relevant program or activity. A key factor in deciding to establish an agency-wide goal is a significant investment in systems, equipment or facilities.
Significant revision of goal 3 would be consistent with the OMB guidance. Employee training was included as a strategy in goal 1. When a workforce issue with significant investment is anticipated, a specific performance measure could be incorporated into an annual performance plan with the related performance goal. Further, the need to develop systems to collect and analyze the data would be eliminated.
220.12 Verification and validation. The annual performance plan must include an identification of the means the agency will use to verify and validate the measured performance indicators. The means used should be sufficiently credible and specific to support the general accuracy and reliability of the performance information that is recorded, collected and reported.
The FY 1999 Plan did not describe the means to be used to verify and validate measured values, and the description in the FY 2000 Plan was inadequate. The FY 2000 Plan included two paragraphs on verification and validation of data that discussed very generally the reconciliation of data input to the Case Handling Information Processing System (CHIPS), and the new Case Activity Tracking System (CATS). The description did not: state who was responsible for the actual verification and validation of performance measures, address all of the performance measures, or identify the system that was actually used to prepare statistics.
Responsibility for measuring the goals was not clearly designated. The Budget Branch Chief identified ten officials as having responsibility for the performance measures. These officials were requested to submit data for the performance report on October 13, 1999. Several of the officials had not planned on providing data and were not prepared to do so in a timely manner.
The means described for verification and validation of data did not address at least 23 performance measures that could not be measured by data in CHIPS and CATS. This includes performance measures in goals 1 and 2 that were not quantifiable and all of the performance measures for goals 3 and 4.
None of the performance measures were actually supported by data in CATS or CHIPS. According to ITB, regional offices entered duplicate information into a separate data-base system, and ITB generated the reports used for the quantifiable performance measures in goals 1 and 2 from this system. Officials gathered the data for other performance measures, such as the installation of CATS in regional offices, from office records. For some measures, particularly those involving training, no plans were made on what data would be collected and no systems existed to collect needed data. For example, officials could identify relevant courses for a training goal, but not data on how many employees were in the targeted universe or how many employees actually received training.
The performance report was not compiled in a timely manner. The initial drafts were distributed for review and comment on November 4, 1999, with no data for eight performance measures (two of which each had three subparts). Data was still not available as of January 6, 2000, for one performance measure to reduce the number of median days from issuance of complaint to close of hearing (2-5). Officials could not effectively review draft documents missing significant information, and the delay limited the usefulness of the performance report in developing the FY 2001 Performance Plan.
220.13 Availability of detailed performance information. For many agencies, the annual plan will summarize performance information prepared and used at different levels of the agency. In these instances, agencies will have available the underlying detail.
We attempted to obtain supporting documentation for data that, at a minimum, contained the same number(s) provided in the draft performance report. Support was provided for most of the results (25 of 32 quantifiable performance measures - see Attachment 2).
We encountered several difficulties in obtaining adequate documentation. Reports frequently needed to be regenerated by program personnel or ITB. In theory, reports can be regenerated and produce the same results. In practice, later reports commonly did not have the same results due to changes in the data or the way in which the request was phrased. Further, some of the reports had to be analyzed to obtain a result, and the analysis had to be replicated. The differences that resulted needed to be reconciled.
Some specific observations that we had on documentation were:
- An early draft Performance Report showed 90 percent of elections were held within 56 days of filing petition, which was questioned by the Budget Branch. Operations-Management provided a new figure of 84.3 percent. We obtained a report from ITB that showed 90.3 percent. The difference was attributed to the inclusion of unblocked elections in the lower figure. The higher number was retained (1-2).
- The January draft Performance Report stated 59 post-election reports were issued in more than 100 days, other than when the reasons were beyond control of the regions. We expected the number of all reports issued in more than 100 days to be greater, or at least equal to the 59 reports. Using a report generated by ITB and the stated criteria, we identified 52 reports in total and 39 when the blocked cases were eliminated (1-8).
- Unfair labor cases pending at the Board for more than three years were reported as being reduced from 81 to 13 cases. A list of the 81 cases was not available, and support provided in February 2000 changed the number to 87 cases (2-12).
- Data was not available on all elections held more than 85 days after filing (1-3). Similarly, data was not available on all post-election reports issued more than 120 days after the election (1-6).
- The statistics on closing advice cases and providing memoranda to the Board were calculated on scratch paper that was discarded (2-8 and 2-9).
220.18 Revised final annual plan. Changes made to a final plan through a revised final plan are limited to those resulting from Congressional action or the occurrence of unanticipated exigencies. Revised plans should be completed within 30 days of the start of the fiscal year. If Congressional action is not completed, a revised plan should be based on the agency's best judgment of the funding level. Prolonging completion of a revised final plan until the FY is well underway limits the usefulness as a management document.
An agency may choose to prepare a revised final plan to reflect Congressional action on the budget request. Only necessary changes should be made in the revised final plan, and performance goals and indicators are the most likely element to be altered. The revised final plan should clearly indicate the changes in performance goals and indicators. The plan should not simply substitute the modified values or descriptions, which would force readers to search separate documents to understand the extent of the changes.
The Agency revised the performance measures in the FY 1999 Plan as allowed by OMB guidance, but did not do so in a timely or clear manner. The Agency completed the FY 1999 Plan in March 1998 based on a budget request of $194 million. In October 1998, the Agency received an actual allocation of $184.5 million. The Board did not issue a revised final FY 1999 Plan, choosing instead to include the revised FY 1999 performance measures in the FY 2000 Plan issued around March 1999.
The FY 2000 Plan did not inform the reader in a narrative that the FY 1999 measures were revised, and did not clearly identify the revised measures. The measures were reported in a column titled "FY 1999 Estimated;" and some items appeared to be reporting interim actual results, not performance measures. The plan simply substituted the modified values or descriptions, and did not indicate the changes made.
The extent of the changes is difficult to clearly identify. The performance measures in the FY 1999 Plan were not presented in the same format as in the FY 2000 Plan, which became the basis for the draft performance report. Multiple new measures were added in goals 1, 2 and 3, one measure in goal 1 was dropped, and the wording for several measures was made less specific. Half of the measures in goal 3 were changed to "No specific commitment." Quantitative changes were made in multiple measures, some for rather significant amounts.
232.1 &2 Elements of an annual program performance report. An annual report must compare actual performance with the projected levels of performance set out in an annual performance plan. An agency may selectively include comments on the quality of the actual performance data included in the annual report, where such comments would help in understanding the accuracy or validity of data.
Data on actual performance was not provided in the draft performance report for two of the quantifiable performance measures on reducing the median age of cases. Based on the Strategic Plan, we calculated the FY 1999 goal for representation cases as a 142-day median. Using the FY 2000 Plan, the revised goal was a 247-day median, actually an increase from baseline data (1-14). The Strategic Plan did not identify the baseline data for unfair labor cases, so we could not calculate the original goal. Using the FY 2000 Plan, the revised goal was a 204-day median (2-11). The actual number of median days for FY 1999 was not provided for either performance measure, effectively preventing any evaluation of the Agency's accomplishment of these goals.
Several comments were needed in the performance report to disclose data limitations. The performance data was frequently calculated from an office rather than the Agency perspective; accordingly, periods of time and some cases were excluded from the measurements. We believe the performance measures should reflect Agency performance, but if not, the results need to clearly indicate what is being measured.
Dates. Most of the performance measures in goals 1 and 2 were time related. For time period calculations, we determined the beginning date, ending date, and any periods suspended. Virtually all calculations were done from an office viewpoint, allowing unproductive times between offices to be unmeasured. See Attachment 3.
For most measures, the beginning dates were when a case was logged into an office control system, not the actual date of the action (i.e. filing or brief). These dates are reportedly the same or the next day. But for measures counted in days, this could make a difference, and allowed delays in logging an entry to be excluded. If there was a choice of two dates, i.e. an objection or challenge, the latter day was used.
One instance of using dates from an office viewpoint concerned the preparation time for the Agency's annual report. Upon first read, the measure implied that the Agency's annual report would be issued within six months from fiscal year end. However, the beginning date was not October 1, 1999, but the date ITB had received all data, as determined by ITB, which was three weeks after the fiscal year ended (4-5).
The ending dates were usually that of a document issued. If there was a choice of two dates, i.e. the first or last day of an election or hearing, the first day was used. Days for mailing or publication were not included. For mail ballots, the date mailed was used rather than the deadline for receiving ballots.
For some performance measures, time periods were suspended between the beginning and ending dates when the office requested additional information from another office. For example, if a regional office requested advice and the headquarters office needed more information, the clock was stopped while the case was referred back to the originating office. The headquarters office determined the dates to stop and start the clock, which did not concern the regional office because referred cases were not included in their statistics. One case was counted as 43 days until the appeal was sustained; however, this did not include time "off-the-clock" of 185 days.
Cases: Some of the performance measures excluded cases from the universe. This was most noticeable in the performance measures that included the words "except for reasons beyond control of regions," but exclusions occurred for headquarter measures as well. This included blocked cases or court cases, or anything considered out of the office's control, so that a region would not count cases related to a case pending a Board decision. See Attachment 4.
Calculations: The method used to calculate some results indicated the figures were estimates rather than actual amounts.
Median, which is a commonly used Agency measure, is the midpoint for all items in the universe. Two figures in the performance plans were not actual amounts, but estimates based on quarterly medians. The 21-day median for closing advice cases was calculated as the midpoint of the monthly medians (2-7). The 62.5 percent of all elections held within 42 days was calculated from quarterly medians (1-1).
Except for one performance measure, whenever a calculation was made to count the number of days, the date of receipt was not counted, and the final day was counted. One performance measure counted both days (2-7). Responses made on the same day as receipt were counted as zeroes in the calculations. All performance measures do not have to be counted in the same manner, but a conscience decision should be made as to why a method is being used.
Suggestions
The Budget Branch Chief initiated several actions that were necessary. He scheduled training that resulted in guidance to revise the strategic plan with fewer goals and performance measures, and is developing linkage between the strategic plan and the budget. Our suggestions relate to the verification and validation aspect of the strategic plan. The description, in either the strategic plan or a supporting document, should include the following information for each performance measure:
- --assign responsibility for accumulating and reporting the data, which may be different than who is responsible for the accomplishment;
- --define clearly the factors used in the measurement, particularly the beginning and ending dates and any case universe;
- --identify the systems that will be used to gather the data and ways the data will be checked for accuracy and completeness;
- --establish what and where supporting data will be maintained for annual performance reports, and identify where underlying support is maintained.
We also suggest that the Agency adopt a policy to prepare an interim performance report for internal purposes. This report would alert the Agency at six months of any problems in gathering data, and allow adjustments in work priorities if needed to meet goals in the Strategic Plan.
Attachment
cc: The Board
General Counsel
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Executive Secretary
Director, Office of Representation Appeals
Associate General Counsel, Division of Advice
Associate General Counsel, Division of Operations-Management
Associate General Counsel, Division of Enforcement Litigation
Director, Division of Administration
| Goal |
Total |
Finding |
| 1 | 15 | 3 |
| 2 | 16 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 10 |
| 4 | 7 | 0 |
| Total | 48 | 16 |
GOAL 1: Resolve questions concerning representation impartially, promptly, and conclusively.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
1-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 50% of all elections within 42 days of filing petition. |
|
|
1-2. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 87.5% of all elections within 56 days of filing petition. |
|
|
1-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold no election more than 85 days from filing petition, unless circumstances are beyond the region’s control. |
|
|
1-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 35-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if no hearing is conducted. |
|
|
1-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 95-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if a hearing is conducted. |
|
|
1-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 120 days from the filing of objections/challenges except for reasons beyond the control of regions. |
|
|
1-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 50 days from the filing of objections/challenges, if no hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
Attachment 1
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
|
1-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 100 days from objections/challenges, if a hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
||
|
1-9. AGC, Operations-Management |
Achieve voluntary election agreements at least 80% of the time. |
||
|
1-10. Director, Representation Appeals |
Rule on Requests for Review of Regional Decisions within a 21-day median from the receipt of the request. |
||
|
1-11. AGC, Operations-Management |
Establish/improve performance goals and measures related to representation proceedings. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
|
1-12. AGC, Operations-Management |
Revise representation casehandling manual and make it accessible to the public through several means, including the Internet. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
|
1-13. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of representation case work. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
|
1-14. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the median age of representation cases pending before the Board, 158 days in FY 1997, by 5% annually. |
||
|
1-15. Executive Secretary |
Issue all representation cases pending at the Board more than two years. |
||
Attachment 1
GOAL 2: Investigate, prosecute and remedy unlawful acts, called unfair labor practices, by either employers or unions or both.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
2-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of ULP casehandling. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
2-2. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief, Procurement and Facilities Branch |
Evaluate management of Information Officer Program. (yearly acceptance rate of 5 to 5.5% of inquiries and a merit rate of at least 27% deleted). |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
2-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category III (7 weeks) to 13%. |
|
|
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category II (11weeks) to 20%. |
||
|
Increase percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category I (15 weeks) to 30%. |
||
|
2-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Settle 90 - 95% of ULP cases in which further proceedings are deemed warranted prior to formal litigation. |
|
|
2-5. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief ALJ |
Reduce number of median days from issuance of complaint to close of hearing. |
|
|
2-6. Director, Office of Appeals |
Issue sustained appeals cases within 120 days from receipt of the appeal in 60% of the closed cases. |
|
|
2-7. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases not seeking injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
Attachment 1
| Responsible Official | Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
2-8. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
|
|
2-9. AGC, Advice |
Provide memo to the Board in advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within 10 days of receipt from regional offices. |
|
|
2-10. Chief ALJ |
Issue ALJ decisions within a 90-day median of filing of briefs regardless of length of transcript. |
|
|
2-11. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the age of ULP cases pending at the Board, currently 215 days, by 5% annually. |
|
|
2-12. Executive Secretary |
Issue all ULP cases pending at the Board for more than three years. |
|
|
2-13. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 83% of all priority enforcement petitions within 100 days from referral. |
|
|
2-14. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 76% of all non-priority enforcement petitions within 150 days from referral. |
|
|
2-15. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category III (13 weeks) to 10%. |
|
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category II (17 weeks) to 13%. |
||
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category I (21 weeks) to 15%. |
||
|
2-16. AGC, Operations-Management |
Improve quality of ULP case processing. Review, update and disseminate (including on Internet) the ULP Practice Manual. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
Attachment 1
GOAL 3: Develop and maintain a well trained, highly effective, productive, customer-service oriented workforce.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
3-1. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on specific Agency initiatives, such as representation case processing. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-2. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on career development and continuing legal education. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 24 professional and 13 support field employees with voluntary details to headquarters offices. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 17 headquarters professional employees with details to field offices. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 11 details for headquarters professional employees to other headquarters offices . |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars (Strategic Plan). No specific commitment when revised. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for trial attorneys, field examiners and regional management. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for new employees, and on compliance and Freedom of Information Act. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-9. Chief ALJ |
Provide training for ALJ. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
|
3-10. Executive Assistant to the Chairman |
Provide Board staff training for supervisors. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not quantitative standard, value, or rate. |
Attachment 1
GOAL 4: Fully integrate information resource management into the working environment to increase the Agency’s ability to provide information to the public and to meet Agency core mission functions and goals.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
4-1. Chief Information Officer |
Establish information infrastructure in 18 locations, for a total of 36. |
|
|
4-2. Chief Information Officer |
Improve electronic access to legal research materials. Provide every office access to the Internet. |
|
|
4-3. Chief Information Officer |
Design and deploy telecommunications architecture in 44 locations, for a total of 54. |
|
|
4-4. Chief Information Officer |
Develop and deploy Case Activity Tracking System in 26 locations, for a total of 28. |
|
|
4-5. Chief Information Officer |
Maintain shorter preparation time for Agency’s Annual Report, 6 months for FY 1998 Report. |
|
|
4-6. Chief Information Officer |
Improve agency and public access to NLRB activities, decisions and documents through an Internet web site. |
|
|
4-7. Chief Information Officer |
Achieve Year 2000 compliance. |
Attachment 1
| Goal | Total | Finding |
| 1 | 12 | 9 |
| 2 | 13 | 9 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 7 | 7 |
| Total | 32 | 25 |
GOAL 1: Resolve questions concerning representation impartially, promptly, and conclusively.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
1-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 50% of all elections within 42 days of filing petition. |
Operations-Management had report. |
|
1-2. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 87.5% of all elections within 56 days of filing petition. |
ITB regenerated support, which differed from revised figure provided by Operations-Management. |
|
1-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold no election more than 85 days from filing petition, unless circumstances are beyond the region’s control. |
Operations-Management provided reports from 31 Regional Offices to support the unexcused elections over 85 days. No supporting documentation was provided for excused elections over 85 days. |
|
1-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 35-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if no hearing is conducted. |
Operations-Management had report. |
|
1-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 95-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if a hearing is conducted. |
Operations-Management had report. |
|
1-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 120 days from the filing of objections/challenges except for reasons beyond the control of regions. |
Operations-Management provided reports from 31 Regional Offices to support 3 unexcused reports over 120 days. No supporting documentation was provided for excused reports over 120 days. |
|
1-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 50 days from the filing of objections/challenges, if no hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
ITB regenerated report. |
Attachment 2
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
|
1-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 100 days from objections/challenges, if a hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
Operations-Management provided report that was not annotated; does not match 59 reports. |
|
|
1-9. AGC, Operations-Management |
Achieve voluntary election agreements at least 80% of the time. |
Operations-Management had report. |
|
|
1-10. Director, Representation Appeals |
Rule on Requests for Review of Regional Decisions within a 21-day median from the receipt of the request. |
ITB regenerated report. |
|
|
1-11. AGC, Operations-Management |
Establish/improve performance goals and measures related to representation proceedings. |
Not applicable. |
|
|
1-12. AGC, Operations-Management |
Revise representation casehandling manual and make it accessible to the public through several means, including the Internet. |
Not applicable. |
|
|
1-13. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of representation case work. |
Not applicable. |
|
|
1-14. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the median age of representation cases pending before the Board, 158 days in FY 1997, by 5% annually. |
OES regenerated and annotated report. |
|
|
1-15. Executive Secretary |
Issue all representation cases pending at the Board more than two years. |
OES generated statistics from office records. New report generated had different numbers. |
|
Attachment 2
GOAL 2: Investigate, prosecute and remedy unlawful acts, called unfair labor practices, by either employers or unions or both.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
2-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of ULP casehandling. |
Not applicable. |
|
2-2. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief, Procurement and Facilities Branch |
Evaluate management of Information Officer Program. (yearly acceptance rate of 5 to 5.5% of inquiries and a merit rate of at least 27% deleted). |
Not applicable. |
|
2-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category III (7 weeks) to 13%. |
Operations-Management had report. |
|
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category II (11weeks) to 20%. |
||
|
Increase percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category I (15 weeks) to 30%. |
||
|
2-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Settle 90 - 95% of ULP cases in which further proceedings are deemed warranted prior to formal litigation. |
Operations-Management had report. |
|
2-5. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief ALJ |
Reduce number of median days from issuance of complaint to close of hearing. |
Data on results not available. |
|
2-6. Director, Office of Appeals |
Issue sustained appeals cases within 120 days from receipt of the appeal in 60% of the closed cases. |
Appeals regenerated report, not annotated. |
|
2-7. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases not seeking injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
Advice had report, not annotated. |
Attachment 2
| Responsible Official | Performance Measure | Comments |
|
2-8. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
Program office calculations on scratch paper were discarded. |
|
2-9. AGC, Advice |
Provide memo to the Board in advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within 10 days of receipt from regional offices. |
Program office calculations on scratch paper were discarded. |
|
2-10. Chief ALJ |
Issue ALJ decisions within a 90-day median of filing of briefs regardless of length of transcript. |
ITB regenerated report. |
|
2-11. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the age of ULP cases pending at the Board, currently 215 days, by 5% annually. |
OES generated report. |
|
2-12. Executive Secretary |
Issue all ULP cases pending at the Board for more than three years. |
OES generated statistics from office records. Support generated in February 2000 changed numbers from 81 to 87 cases. |
|
2-13. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 83% of all priority enforcement petitions within 100 days from referral. |
Enforcement had annotated report. |
|
2-14. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 76% of all non-priority enforcement petitions within 150 days from referral. |
Enforcement had annotated report. |
|
2-15. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category III (13 weeks) to 10%. |
Operations-Management had report. |
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category II (17 weeks) to 13%. |
||
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category I (21 weeks) to 15%. |
||
|
2-16. AGC, Operations-Management |
Improve quality of ULP case processing. Review, update and disseminate (including on Internet) the ULP Practice Manual. |
Not applicable. |
Attachment 2
GOAL 3: Develop and maintain a well trained, highly effective, productive, customer-service oriented workforce.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
3-1. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on specific Agency initiatives, such as representation case processing. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-2. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on career development and continuing legal education. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 24 professional and 13 support field employees with voluntary details to headquarters offices. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 17 headquarters professional employees with details to field offices. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 11 details for headquarters professional employees to other headquarters offices . |
Not applicable. |
|
3-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars (Strategic Plan). No specific commitment when revised. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for trial attorneys, field examiners and regional management. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for new employees, and on compliance and Freedom of Information Act. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-9. Chief ALJ |
Provide training for ALJ. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not applicable. |
|
3-10. Executive Assistant to the Chairman |
Provide Board staff training for supervisors. No specific commitment when revised. |
Not applicable. |
Attachment 2
GOAL 4: Fully integrate information resource management into the working environment to increase the Agency’s ability to provide information to the public and to meet Agency core mission functions and goals.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
4-1. Chief Information Officer |
Establish information infrastructure in 18 locations, for a total of 36. |
ITB provided from office files. |
|
4-2. Chief Information Officer |
Improve electronic access to legal research materials. Provide every office access to the Internet. |
ITB provided from office files. |
|
4-3. Chief Information Officer |
Design and deploy telecommunications architecture in 44 locations, for a total of 54. |
ITB provided from office files. |
|
4-4. Chief Information Officer |
Develop and deploy Case Activity Tracking System in 26 locations, for a total of 28. |
ITB provided from office files. |
|
4-5. Chief Information Officer |
Maintain shorter preparation time for Agency’s Annual Report, 6 months for FY 1998 Report. |
ITB provided from office files. |
|
4-6. Chief Information Officer |
Improve agency and public access to NLRB activities, decisions and documents through an Internet web site. |
ITB provided from office files. |
|
4-7. Chief Information Officer |
Achieve Year 2000 compliance. |
ITB provided from office files. |
Attachment 2
| Goal | Total | Finding |
| 1 | 12 | 8 |
| 2 | 13 | 9 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 7 | 1 |
| Total | 32 | 18 |
GOAL 1: Resolve questions concerning representation impartially, promptly, and conclusively.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
1-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 50% of all elections within 42 days of filing petition. |
Ending date is beginning of election, even when several days are needed on site or several weeks for mail-in ballots. |
|
1-2. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 87.5% of all elections within 56 days of filing petition. |
Ending date is beginning of election, even when several days are needed on site or several weeks for mail-in ballots. |
|
1-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold no election more than 85 days from filing petition, unless circumstances are beyond the region’s control. |
|
|
1-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 35-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if no hearing is conducted. |
Beginning date is from latest of objection or challenge, which can be up to 7 days after date election over. |
|
1-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 95-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if a hearing is conducted. |
Beginning date is from latest of objection or challenge, which can be up to 7 days after date election over. |
|
1-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 120 days from the filing of objections/challenges except for reasons beyond the control of regions. |
Beginning date is from latest of objection or challenge, which can be up to 7 days after date election over. |
|
1-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 50 days from the filing of objections/challenges, if no hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
Beginning date is from latest of objection or challenge, which can be up to 7 days after date election over. |
Attachment 3
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
|
1-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 100 days from objections/challenges, if a hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
Beginning date is from latest of objection or challenge, which can be up to 7 days after date election over. |
|
|
1-9. AGC, Operations-Management |
Achieve voluntary election agreements at least 80% of the time. |
||
|
1-10. Director, Representation Appeals |
Rule on Requests for Review of Regional Decisions within a 21-day median from the receipt of the request. |
Beginning date is day received in office, rather than date of request or receipt in OES. |
|
|
1-11. AGC, Operations-Management |
Establish/improve performance goals and measures related to representation proceedings. |
||
|
1-12. AGC, Operations-Management |
Revise representation casehandling manual and make it accessible to the public through several means, including the Internet. |
||
|
1-13. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of representation case work. |
||
|
1-14. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the median age of representation cases pending before the Board, 158 days in FY 1997, by 5% annually. |
||
|
1-15. Executive Secretary |
Issue all representation cases pending at the Board more than two years. |
||
Attachment 3
GOAL 2: Investigate, prosecute and remedy unlawful acts, called unfair labor practices, by either employers or unions or both.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
2-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of ULP casehandling. |
|
|
2-2. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief, Procurement and Facilities Branch |
Evaluate management of Information Officer Program. (yearly acceptance rate of 5 to 5.5% of inquiries and a merit rate of at least 27% deleted). |
|
|
2-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category III (7 weeks) to 13%. |
Beginning date when docketed, not when filed, which is usually the same or next day. |
|
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category II (11weeks) to 20%. |
||
|
Increase percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category I (15 weeks) to 30%. |
||
|
2-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Settle 90 - 95% of ULP cases in which further proceedings are deemed warranted prior to formal litigation. |
|
|
2-5. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief ALJ |
Reduce number of median days from issuance of complaint to close of hearing. |
|
|
2-6. Director, Office of Appeals |
Issue sustained appeals cases within 120 days from receipt of the appeal in 60% of the closed cases. |
Beginning date when received in office, not when filed by individuals. Time suspended when request made to another office for information. |
|
2-7. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases not seeking injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
Beginning date when received in office, not when filed by individuals. Time suspended when request made to another office for information. |
Attachment 3
| Responsible Official | Performance Measure | Comments |
|
2-8. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
Beginning date when received in office, not when filed by individuals. Time suspended when request made to another office for information. |
|
2-9. AGC, Advice |
Provide memo to the Board in advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within 10 days of receipt from regional offices. |
Beginning date when received in office, not when filed by individuals. Time suspended when request made to another office for information. |
|
2-10. Chief ALJ |
Issue ALJ decisions within a 90-day median of filing of briefs regardless of length of transcript. |
Beginning date when received by ALJ, not when filed. Ending date when signed by ALJ, not when issued by OES. |
|
2-11. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the age of ULP cases pending at the Board, currently 215 days, by 5% annually. |
|
|
2-12. Executive Secretary |
Issue all ULP cases pending at the Board for more than three years. |
|
|
2-13. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 83% of all priority enforcement petitions within 100 days from referral. |
Ending date when mailed to court, not received there. Time suspended when request made to another office for information. |
|
2-14. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 76% of all non-priority enforcement petitions within 150 days from referral. |
Ending date when mailed to court, not received there. Time suspended when request made to another office for information. |
|
2-15. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category III (13 weeks) to 10%. |
Beginning date when received in office, not date of court order or decree. |
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category II (17 weeks) to 13%. |
||
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category I (21 weeks) to 15%. |
||
|
2-16. AGC, Operations-Management |
Improve quality of ULP case processing. Review, update and disseminate (including on Internet) the ULP Practice Manual. |
Attachment 3
GOAL 3: Develop and maintain a well trained, highly effective, productive, customer-service oriented workforce.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
3-1. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on specific Agency initiatives, such as representation case processing. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-2. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on career development and continuing legal education. |
|
|
3-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 24 professional and 13 support field employees with voluntary details to headquarters offices. |
|
|
3-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 17 headquarters professional employees with details to field offices. |
|
|
3-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 11 details for headquarters professional employees to other headquarters offices . |
|
|
3-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars (Strategic Plan). No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for trial attorneys, field examiners and regional management. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for new employees, and on compliance and Freedom of Information Act. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-9. Chief ALJ |
Provide training for ALJ. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-10. Executive Assistant to the Chairman |
Provide Board staff training for supervisors. No specific commitment when revised. |
Attachment 3
GOAL 4: Fully integrate information resource management into the working environment to increase the Agency’s ability to provide information to the public and to meet Agency core mission functions and goals.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
4-1. Chief Information Officer |
Establish information infrastructure in 18 locations, for a total of 36. |
|
|
4-2. Chief Information Officer |
Improve electronic access to legal research materials. Provide every office access to the Internet. |
|
|
4-3. Chief Information Officer |
Design and deploy telecommunications architecture in 44 locations, for a total of 54. |
|
|
4-4. Chief Information Officer |
Develop and deploy Case Activity Tracking System in 26 locations, for a total of 28. |
|
|
4-5. Chief Information Officer |
Maintain shorter preparation time for Agency’s Annual Report, 6 months for FY 1998 Report. |
Date all information is received by ITB, not end of fiscal year. |
|
4-6. Chief Information Officer |
Improve agency and public access to NLRB activities, decisions and documents through an Internet web site. |
|
|
4-7. Chief Information Officer |
Achieve Year 2000 compliance. |
Attachment 3
| Goal | Total | Finding |
| 1 | 15 | 3 |
| 2 | 16 | 3 |
| 3 | 10 | 10 |
| 4 | 7 | 0 |
| Total | 48 | 16 |
GOAL 1: Resolve questions concerning representation impartially, promptly, and conclusively.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
1-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 50% of all elections within 42 days of filing petition. |
|
|
1-2. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold at least 87.5% of all elections within 56 days of filing petition. |
|
|
1-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold no election more than 85 days from filing petition, unless circumstances are beyond the region’s control. |
Blocked and excused cases excluded. |
|
1-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 35-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if no hearing is conducted. |
|
|
1-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue post-election reports within a 95-day median from the filing of objections/ challenges if a hearing is conducted. |
|
|
1-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 120 days from the filing of objections/challenges except for reasons beyond the control of regions. |
Blocked and excused cases excluded. |
|
1-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 50 days from the filing of objections/challenges, if no hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
Blocked and excused cases excluded. |
Attachment 4
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
|
1-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Issue no post-election report more than 100 days from objections/challenges, if a hearing is conducted, except for reasons beyond control of regions. |
Blocked and excused cases excluded. |
|
|
1-9. AGC, Operations-Management |
Achieve voluntary election agreements at least 80% of the time. |
||
|
1-10. Director, Representation Appeals |
Rule on Requests for Review of Regional Decisions within a 21-day median from the receipt of the request. |
Cases not circulated, assigned, or iced are excluded. |
|
|
1-11. AGC, Operations-Management |
Establish/improve performance goals and measures related to representation proceedings. |
||
|
1-12. AGC, Operations-Management |
Revise representation casehandling manual and make it accessible to the public through several means, including the Internet. |
||
|
1-13. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of representation case work. |
||
|
1-14. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the median age of representation cases pending before the Board, 158 days in FY 1997, by 5% annually. |
||
|
1-15. Executive Secretary |
Issue all representation cases pending at the Board more than two years. |
||
Attachment 4
GOAL 2: Investigate, prosecute and remedy unlawful acts, called unfair labor practices, by either employers or unions or both.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
2-1. AGC, Operations-Management |
Evaluate quality of ULP casehandling. |
|
|
2-2. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief, Procurement and Facilities Branch |
Evaluate management of Information Officer Program. (yearly acceptance rate of 5 to 5.5% of inquiries and a merit rate of at least 27% deleted). |
|
|
2-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category III (7 weeks) to 13%. |
Excused cases are excluded. |
|
Reduce percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category II (11weeks) to 20%. |
||
|
Increase percentage of unexcused overage cases in Category I (15 weeks) to 30%. |
||
|
2-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Settle 90 - 95% of ULP cases in which further proceedings are deemed warranted prior to formal litigation. |
|
|
2-5. AGC, Operations-Management
Chief ALJ |
Reduce number of median days from issuance of complaint to close of hearing. |
|
|
2-6. Director, Office of Appeals |
Issue sustained appeals cases within 120 days from receipt of the appeal in 60% of the closed cases. |
Remanded cases to Regional Offices. |
|
2-7. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases not seeking injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
Attachment 4
| Responsible Official | Performance Measure | Comments |
|
2-8. AGC, Advice |
Close advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within a 25-day median of receipt from regional offices. |
|
|
2-9. AGC, Advice |
Provide memo to the Board in advice cases seeking sec. 10(j) injunctions within 10 days of receipt from regional offices. |
|
|
2-10. Chief ALJ |
Issue ALJ decisions within a 90-day median of filing of briefs regardless of length of transcript. |
|
|
2-11. Executive Secretary |
Reduce the age of ULP cases pending at the Board, currently 215 days, by 5% annually. |
|
|
2-12. Executive Secretary |
Issue all ULP cases pending at the Board for more than three years. |
|
|
2-13. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 83% of all priority enforcement petitions within 100 days from referral. |
|
|
2-14. AGC, Enforcement Litigation |
File 76% of all non-priority enforcement petitions within 150 days from referral. |
|
|
2-15. AGC, Operations-Management |
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category III (13 weeks) to 10%. |
|
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category II (17 weeks) to 13%. |
||
|
Reduce overage compliance cases in Category I (21 weeks) to 15%. |
||
|
2-16. AGC, Operations-Management |
Improve quality of ULP case processing. Review, update and disseminate (including on Internet) the ULP Practice Manual. |
Attachment 4
GOAL 3: Develop and maintain a well trained, highly effective, productive, customer-service oriented workforce.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
3-1. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on specific Agency initiatives, such as representation case processing. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-2. Assistant Branch Chief, Employee Development Section |
Provide General Counsel staff training on career development and continuing legal education. |
|
|
3-3. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 24 professional and 13 support field employees with voluntary details to headquarters offices. |
|
|
3-4. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 17 headquarters professional employees with details to field offices. |
|
|
3-5. AGC, Operations-Management |
Provide up to 11 details for headquarters professional employees to other headquarters offices . |
|
|
3-6. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars (Strategic Plan). No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-7. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for trial attorneys, field examiners and regional management. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-8. AGC, Operations-Management |
Hold training seminars for new employees, and on compliance and Freedom of Information Act. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-9. Chief ALJ |
Provide training for ALJ. No specific commitment when revised. |
|
|
3-10. Executive Assistant to the Chairman |
Provide Board staff training for supervisors. No specific commitment when revised. |
Attachment 4
GOAL 4: Fully integrate information resource management into the working environment to increase the Agency’s ability to provide information to the public and to meet Agency core mission functions and goals.
|
Responsible Official |
Performance Measure |
Comments |
|
4-1. Chief Information Officer |
Establish information infrastructure in 18 locations, for a total of 36. |
|
|
4-2. Chief Information Officer |
Improve electronic access to legal research materials. Provide every office access to the Internet. |
|
|
4-3. Chief Information Officer |
Design and deploy telecommunications architecture in 44 locations, for a total of 54. |
|
|
4-4. Chief Information Officer |
Develop and deploy Case Activity Tracking System in 26 locations, for a total of 28. |
|
|
4-5. Chief Information Officer |
Maintain shorter preparation time for Agency’s Annual Report, 6 months for FY 1998 Report. |
|
|
4-6. Chief Information Officer |
Improve agency and public access to NLRB activities, decisions and documents through an Internet web site. |
|
|
4-7. Chief Information Officer |
Achieve Year 2000 compliance. |