FISCAL YEAR 1999 ANNUAL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
March 2000
 

OVERVIEW OF FLRA

The FLRA is an independent agency responsible for directing the labor-management relations program for 1.9 million non-postal Federal employees world-wide, nearly 1.1 million of whom are exclusively represented in approximately 2,200 bargaining units. The FLRA is charged by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) with: providing leadership in establishing policies and guidance relating to Federal sector labor-management relations; resolving disputes arising among Federal agencies and unions representing Federal employees; and ensuring compliance with the Statute.

The FLRA fulfills its statutory responsibilities through its three primary operational components -- the Authority, the Office of General Counsel and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.

The Authority adjudicates disputes arising under the Statute, deciding cases concerning the negotiability of collective bargaining agreement proposals, unfair labor practice (ULP) allegations, representation petitions, and exceptions to grievance arbitration awards. As part of the Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Program described below, the Authority also assists Federal agencies and unions in understanding their rights and responsibilities under the Statute and resolving their disputes through interest-based problem-solving rather than adjudication. In addition to the three Authority Member Offices, the Authority component of the FLRA also houses the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, and agency central management offices.

The FLRA's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) hear and prepare recommended decisions in cases involving alleged ULPs. In addition, the ALJs issue decisions involving applications for attorney fees filed pursuant to the Back Pay Act or the Equal Access to Justice Act. The decisions of the ALJs may be affirmed, modified, or reversed, in whole or in part, by the Authority. If no exceptions are filed to an ALJ decision, the decision is adopted by the Authority and becomes final and binding on the parties. While performing their duties, the ALJs engage in settlement efforts throughout all stages of the process and also conduct prehearing conferences in all ULP cases.

The Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Office is responsible for coordinating, supporting, and expanding the unified CADR Program. Under this program, all three agency components offer a variety of collaboration and alternative dispute resolution services at all steps of the process, from investigation and prosecution to the adjudication of cases and resolution of bargaining impasses. The CADR Program also provides partnership facilitation and training programs to assist labor and management in developing constructive approaches to conducting their relationship.

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is the independent investigative and prosecutorial component of the FLRA. The OGC investigates all ULP charges filed by labor or management and prosecutes all ULP complaints before the Authority -- primarily through staff located in seven regional offices. The regional offices: investigate and settle or prosecute ULP claims, actively encouraging, as part of the CADR Program, the use of collaboration and alternative dispute resolution at every step; ensure compliance with all ULP orders issued by the Authority; receive and process representation petitions; and provide facilitation, intervention, training, and education services to the parties. The General Counsel reviews all appeals of a Regional Director's decision not to issue a ULP complaint and establishes policies and procedures for processing ULP charges.

The Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP or the Panel) resolves bargaining impasses between Federal agencies and unions representing Federal employees arising from negotiations over conditions of employment under the Statute and the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act. If bargaining between the parties, followed by mediation assistance, proves unsuccessful, the Panel has the authority to recommend procedures and to take whatever action it deems necessary to resolve the impasse.

SUMMARY OF FY 1999 PERFORMANCE

Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) developed a Strategic Plan that identifies goals, objectives and performance indicators for Fiscal Years (FY)1998-2002. The Strategic Plan enables FLRA to carry out responsibilities identified in the FLRA Mission Statement: "to exercise leadership under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute to promote stable, constructive labor-management relations that contribute to a more effective Government."

The FLRA Strategic Plan includes four broad goals. They are: 1) providing high quality services that timely resolve disputes; 2) using alternative methods of dispute resolution and avoidance to reduce the costs of conflict; 3) maintaining internal systems that support programs needs -- notably information technology systems; and 4) developing FLRA staff to ensure an effective organization with the flexibility to meet program needs. Consistent with the FLRA Strategic Plan, FLRA developed its FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan which identifies 28 performance goals to implement the four Strategic Plan goals.

During FY 1999, FLRA fully met, or exceeded, 22 of the 28 performance goals (including one goal which was exceeded by 55%). Of the six goals not "fully" met, FLRA substantially met three -- falling just 1% short of two goals and making significant progress to meet the other goal. FLRA partially met the remaining three goals. Adjustments have been made to achieve these six performance goals in FY 2000.

Significant accomplishments were made by the FLRA in implementing its FY 1999 performance goals. The FLRA reduced the number of overage cases, the overall age of the pending inventory and case processing times. At the same time these reductions occurred, FLRA maintained high standards of quality. In addition, FLRA revised its regulations relating to negotiability appeals and unfair labor practice pre-complaint activity to improve and expedite case processing. Significant aspects of the negotiability regulations include conferences designed to narrow and clarify issues; revision of procedures to enable the Authority to resolve all aspects of a dispute, where appropriate; and clarification of the responsibilities of each party. The purpose of the revised ULP regulations is to facilitate dispute resolution and to simplify, clarify and improve processing of ULP charges. In addition, the revised ULP regulations provide for OGC dispute resolution services at every stage of case processing.

The quality of FLRA services continued to improve through implementing initiatives identified as necessary by respondents to a 1998 customer survey. The FLRA established a model alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program and continued to emphasize ADR methods by providing training, facilitation and intervention services. The FLRA made significant progress in its commitment to maintain sound internal systems and processes including implementation of a Year 2000 (Y2K) remediation plan, upgrade of computer hardware and software, design and conversion of agency databases and expansion of the FLRA web site. Finally, FLRA continued its commitment to maintaining a highly skilled work force through employee development programs and a performance management system.

The following describes the specific performance related to each of the performance goals in the FLRA FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan in the order they appear in the FY 1999 Congressional Budget Submission.

FISCAL YEAR 1999 ANNUAL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
March 2000
 

FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 1:

To consistently provide high quality services that timely resolve disputes in the Federal labor-management relations community.

Summary: In order to accomplish the FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 1, FLRA established 15 performance goals in its FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan. At the conclusion of FY 1999, FLRA met or exceeded 11 of the 15 Strategic Plan Goal 1 performance goals, including one goal which was exceeded by 55%. The FLRA substantially met two of the 15 goals -- falling just 1% short in each instance; and partially met the two remaining goals.

The 15 performance goals focused on: 1) case processing targets to ensure the timely processing and resolution of disputes; 2) targets to reduce the number of cases which are defined as overage and ultimately the age of the pending case inventory; 3) standards and techniques to ensure high quality services; 4) regulatory revisions to simplify and expedite case processing; and 5) work process changes to respond to customer needs.

In implementing its performance goals, FLRA made considerable progress in FY 1999 in resolving labor-management disputes in a timely manner. The agency significantly reduced the number of overage cases and the overall age of the pending inventory. For example, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) reduced the number of overage representation cases from 51% in FY 1997 to16% at the end of FY 1999, and the Authority reduced the number of overage cases awaiting decision by 75%. The FLRA also reduced its case processing times while, at the same time, maintaining high standards of quality. The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) reduced the amount of time to issue decisions after hearing by 24%. The Authority, while reducing its overage inventory and increasing productivity, also maintained a high level of quality in its decisions. For example, the Supreme Court upheld the Authority in both FLRA cases it heard. Our record before the Courts of Appeals was equally impressive. FLRA also revised its regulations in processing negotiability appeals and unfair labor practice charges, thereby simplifying and expediting case processing. Finally, FLRA continued to improve the quality of its services by implementing a number of initiatives in response to a customer survey.

The following describes the specific performance related to each of the 15 performance goals.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was partially met. The goal was developed and implemented by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to emphasize timely representation case processing.

By the end of FY 1999, 16% of pending representation caseload was over 90 days old without notice of hearing issued -- short of the 10% goal. However, this deviation from the target goal of 10% was a significant reduction from 51% overage at the end of FY 1997, when this performance goal was set. Therefore, the shortfall had minimal impact on overall program performance.

Although the performance goal of 10% was not met, OGC was able to significantly reduce the number of overage cases, while at the same time, increase productivity through a number of strategic actions that included: 1) clarification of the case processing procedures taken by each regional office prior to issuance of a Notice of Hearing; 2) delivery of training and education services to assist the parties in OGC processes; 3) pre-filing assistance consistent with the FLRA representation regulations to narrow or resolve the issues in dispute prior to the filing of a representation case; and 4) issuance of management guidance to Regional Directors on the reassignment of representation cases to facilitate timely disposition.

In this period of continuing Federal government reorganizations and downsizing, disputes regarding the appropriateness of existing and/or newly certified bargaining units are increasing. In FY 1999, OGC received 503 new representation cases, an increase of 10% from FY 1997 case intake levels. Case processing productivity resulted in 671 dispositive actions -- a 20% increase over dispositive actions in FY 1998 -- which resulted in the closure of 500 cases.

Accomplishment of this goal is affected by a number of factors including: 1) representation case intake; 2) staffing; 3) the complexity of representation issues; 4) ongoing reorganizations and restructuring within the Federal government -- notably within the Defense Department; and 5) the willingness of parties to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services in resolving the disputes and/or narrowing the legal issues presented for determination.

Based upon two years of experience, OGC modified its goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001 to ensure that no more than 15% of pending representation caseload is over 90 days old without notice of hearing issued. This modification to 15% is consistent with the OGC performance goal in processing unfair labor practice cases. Conformity of these goals, coupled with a continuation of the strategic action items listed above which resulted in a significant reduction in overage representation cases in FY 1999, will have an overall positive affect on performance and achievement of the 15% goal in FY 2000.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was substantially met -- FLRA fell just 1% short of the goal. The goal was developed and implemented by OGC to manage the unfair labor practice caseload by ensuring the issuance of a timely initial disposition of each charge that is filed.

The 1% deviation in performance of the goal had minimal adverse effect on overall program performance. The FY 1999 performance result represents a steady reduction in overage cases from 31% in FY 1997. Accomplishment of this goal is affected by a number of factors including: 1) the number of unfair labor practice charges filed; 2) staffing; and 3) the willingness of parties to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services in resolving the unfair labor practice charge prior to issuance of a initial dispositive action. In FY 1999, OGC received 5,686 unfair labor practice charges and produced 5,913 initial dispositive actions.

The steady reduction in overage cases since FY 1997 is attributed to, among other things, the ongoing monitoring of case intake and pending cases to facilitate the early transfer of cases between regional offices, and a formal quarterly management review of pending caseload to transfer cases among the OGC's seven regional offices to ensure timely and cost-effective disposition. The achievement of this performance goal is also affected by OGC delivery of ADR services. Consistent with the revised Unfair Labor Practice case processing regulations, OGC provides training, education, intervention and facilitation services to assist the parties in resolving disputes prior to the filing of unfair labor practice charges and at every stage of case processing after a charge is filed. In addition, newly certified bargaining units, as well as agencies that are experiencing a high number of unfair labor practice charge filings, are targeted for the delivery of ADR services.

Based upon experience, the OGC performance goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001 will remain the same as that of FY 1999 -- to ensure that no more than 15% of the ULP caseload awaiting initial dispositive action is over 90 days old. The strategic actions discussed above have had a positive impact on increasing productivity in ULP initial dispositive actions and in reducing the number of older ULP cases. These actions are being continued in FY 2000 with the expectation that this performance goal will be met.
 

Performance Analysis: The first goal was exceeded; the second goal was partially met. These two related goals were jointly developed and implemented by the OALJ to ensure that hearings were conducted in a timely manner to resolve ULP complaints pending before an Administrative Law Judge.

By establishing the first goal -- a median age of 70 days from issuance of a complaint to hearing date, OALJ attempted to ensure that the parties received a prompt hearing of their case. This goal was exceeded as the actual median age was 65 days at the end of FY 1999.

By establishing the second goal -- no more than 10% to reach hearing in more than 129 days, OALJ attempted to limit the number of cases that exceeded the median and became overage. The OALJ fell short of the goal as 25% of the cases pending decision reached hearing in more than 129 days at the end of FY 1999. While OALJ fell short of its goal, only three of the twelve cases pending decisions were beyond the 129 days of reaching hearing at the end of FY 1999.

Some of the factors that affect the OALJ ability to meet its pre-hearing goal include: 1) the level of case intake; 2) staffing; 3) the availability of the parties and the ALJ's to participate in and coordinate hearings; and 4) the extent of settlement negotiations. Furthermore, in some instances, the parties are in serious settlement negotiations and ask to postpone the hearing. This situation may extend the median age of some cases and affect other cases on the same calendar.

Based upon OALJ experience, the FY 2000 and FY 2001 performance goals will continue to focus on ensuring that hearings are conducted in a timely manner and limiting the number of cases that exceed the median and become overage.
 

Performance Analysis: These two related goals were exceeded. The two goals, which were jointly developed and implemented by the OALJ, were established to ensure that OALJ decisions are issued in timely manner.

By establishing the first goal -- a median age target, OALJ attempted to ensure that the parties received a written decision in a timely manner. In FY 1999, the OALJ goal was to ensure a median age of 97 days (a 10% reduction from the baseline year of FY 1997) from the close of hearing to issuance of an OALJ decision. This goal was exceeded by 15 days. The actual median age was 82 days at the end of FY 1999 which represents a 26 day reduction from the end of FY 1997.

By establishing the second goal, OALJ attempted to limit the number of cases that exceeded the median and became overage. The second goal was exceeded as no cases pending OALJ decision exceeded 175 days from the hearing date at the end of FY 1999.

The factors that affect the OALJ ability to reach these goals are frequently beyond OALJ control: 1) case intake; 2) staffing; and 3) complexity of issues. Moreover, OALJ decisions are issued after briefs are filed by the parties and parties ask for extensions of time to file briefs.

The OALJ goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001 continue to reflect median age targets to ensure OALJ decisions are issued in a timely manner. In addition, OALJ established more ambitious goals in FY 2000 (no more than 10% of cases pending decision over 165 days old) and FY 2001 (no more than 10% of cases pending decision over 160 days old) to limit the number of cases pending decision.
 

Performance Analysis: The first goal was substantially met -- the FLRA fell just 1% short; the second goal was exceeded.

The above interrelated goals were developed and implemented by the Authority to assure that the Authority issued the maximum number of decisions possible while, at the same time, reducing the number of overage pending cases and ultimately the age of pending inventory.

In order to accomplish the first goal, the Authority had to issue 206 merits decisions -- a 10% increase over the baseline year of FY 1997. The Authority closed a total of 204 cases through merits decision in FY 1999 -- a 9% increase. Because the 1% deviation was so slight, there was minimal effect on overall program performance.

In order to accomplish the second goal, the Authority needed to reduce its inventory pending merits decision over one year to 48 cases by the end of FY 1999. This goal was exceeded. At the end of FY 1999, only 15 such cases were pending -- a 75% reduction from the baseline year of FY 1997. In addition to issuing decisions in the longest-pending cases, the Authority reduced the period of time for all cases awaiting decisions. The median age of all pending cases fell below 100 days, a 30% reduction from the start of FY 1999. The more expedited issuance of decisions during FY 1999 contributed to substantially reducing the number of pending cases to its lowest level in the Agency's history.

The factors affecting the Authority's ability to achieve these two goals include: 1) the number of pending cases at the beginning of a fiscal year; 2) the number of new cases filed; 3) staffing; 4) the complexity and the number of issues in the cases filed; and 5) the need to issue timely decisions to parties while, at the same time, ensuring that the decisions are legally sound and high quality.

During FY 1999, staff made a significant effort -- approximately two Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff years -- to achieve the goal of issuing revised negotiability appeals regulations discussed below. Despite the reduction in resources available for case processing, the Authority exceeded its goal to reduce overage cases and came within 1% (only two decisions) of reaching its goal, thereby, substantially increasing productivity.

In planning how to achieve its FY 2000 case-related performance goals and in setting its FY 2001 case-related performance goals, the Authority has estimated and taken into account the amount of resources that will be devoted to case-related activities during FY 2000 and FY 2001. Thus, the Authority established new goals in FY 2000 and FY 2001 that focus on reducing the number of cases pending decision over nine months (FY 2000) and six months (FY 2001).
 

Performance Analysis: The above three goals were met. The goals were established by the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) in order to ensure the timely resolution of cases presented before the Panel.

The Panel identified performance targets for the timely resolution of the three types of case disposition: 1) cases where jurisdiction is declined; 2) cases where the parties reach a voluntary settlement after the Panel has asserted jurisdiction; and 3) cases where terms are imposed through a written Decision and Order by the Panel. In order to carefully manage the three types of case dispositions identified in the Annual Performance Plan, additional case processing steps were identified and regularly monitored. These included: 1) starting and completing investigations including the jurisdictional determination; 2) scheduling and completing meetings to discuss voluntary settlements; and 3) drafting and issuing written decisions.

Among the factors affecting case processing times are: 1) staffing; 2) the number of cases filed; 3) the number and complexity of the issues involved, including jurisdictional questions raised; and 4) the ability to obtain the parties' cooperation in submitting of documents and scheduling of joint meetings. Of these variables, historically the first two have been the most important. Despite temporary staff vacancies, the Panel exceeded its overall time targets by a few days in each of the three types of dispositions being tracked.

A brief statistical comparison with FY 1998 illustrates the full extent of the Panel's FY 1999 achievement in meeting its performance goals in the area of timeliness. Total caseload was about the same (175 in FY 1998; 169 in FY 1999); the Panel, however, asserted jurisdiction more frequently in FY 1999 (76 cases) than in FY 1998 (70 cases). While the total number of cases closed by written Panel decision remained the same (33 in both FY 1999 and FY 1998), the Panel provided face-to-face assistance in 65 cases in FY 1999, compared to 46 cases in FY 1998, and the total number of complete voluntary settlements achieved in FY 1999 was significantly greater than in FY 1998 (60 in FY 1999; 47 in FY 1998). Moreover, in FY 1998, the Panel did not meet 2 out of 3 of its timeliness targets, while in FY 1999, it exceeded its targets (the performance targets remained the same during both fiscal years). In summary, these statistics reveal that the Panel was able to exceed its performance goals in FY 1999, while significantly increasing the number of cases in which it asserted jurisdiction and provided face-to-face assistance.

Given its experience in FY 1999, and the complexity and unpredictability of the variables listed above, the Panel has not made adjustments to FY 2000 and FY 2001 goals related to the timely disposition of Panel cases.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the Authority and OGC -- the two components that participated in the 1998 customer survey.

In FY 1998, the FLRA conducted a comprehensive customer survey on the performance of two of its three primary components -- the Authority and the OGC. The survey was designed to measure the effectiveness of each of the programs administered by FLRA, the impact of the FLRA's decisions and the General Counsel's policies and guidance, and customer satisfaction with FLRA processes.

The survey results indicated that FLRA was doing a good job meeting the information needs of its customers, who voiced support for continued outreach activities. For example, respondents to the survey were supportive of the information supplied by OGC. Since 1994, OGC has issued policies, guidance and manuals which are available to the parties. Respondents using these materials found them clearly written; providing a thorough discussion of legal issues; helpful in understanding case law; and helpful in applying the Authority's case law. Additionally the face to face outreach of the General Counsel through a series of Town Meetings held across the country received favorable responses and that such forums were a source of useful information regarding Authority decisions and General Counsel policies and guidance.

Respondents also gave high marks to elements of processing matters before the Authority and OGC. In that regard, respondents agreed that: 1) they were given an opportunity by regional offices to provide relevant information; 2) they were given courteous, professional and fair treatment; 3) OGC regional office and Authority Case Control Office employees were helpful in explaining case processing requirements; and 4) the Administrative Law Judge gave them a full opportunity to present their case and conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner. While the respondents are favorably disposed to the quality of OGC and Authority decisions, concern was expressed regarding the timeliness of communications on the status of cases and the length of time before cases are decided. In addition, the respondents indicated that, although FLRA decisions decide the legal issues raised by parties, they do not necessarily resolve the problems underlying the litigated dispute.

The FLRA responded to the survey results in FY 1999 by, among other things, expanding customer information services; providing FLRA employees and the parties with training; and continuing to focus resources on reducing the age of cases pending decision. Given the importance of addressing the underlying problems provoking disputes between labor and management and improving relationships and problem-solving skills, the FLRA expanded its Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Program to encompass all of the agency's alternate dispute resolution (ADR) activities and, as described below, incorporated collaboration and alternative dispute resolution principles into revised regulations.

In FY 1999, OGC announced its customer service initiatives to be implemented in response to the FY 1998 survey results. These initiatives include: 1) establishing a protocol for publishing timeliness goals and communicating with the parties about the status of their cases in a more timely fashion; 2) revising the ULP Case Handling Manual to incorporate policies, guidance, and changes in procedures due to regulatory revisions and defined Customer Service Standards; 3) conducting comprehensive training to improve the investigative, communication and dispute resolution skills of OGC employees; 4) targeting customers to offer skills-building training and educate the parties about services offered by OGC; 5) developing an evaluation program to measure the effectiveness of the OGC's ADR services; and 6) revising the Appeals Policy to allow for issuance of a modified form appeal denial letter to discuss specific issues raised in the appeal.

As noted above, the survey revealed that customers approve of the quality of Authority decisions but are concerned about the length of time it takes to issue decisions. The Authority began to address the issue of timeliness prior to the survey's final results. Beginning in FY 1998 and continuing through FY 1999, the Authority used several tools to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its decision-making process. As noted, in FY 1999 the Authority targeted overage cases, significantly reducing the number of pending overage cases and reducing the amount of time it takes to issue decisions. Recognizing that the length of decision time was particularly problematic in negotiability appeals, the Authority revised its negotiability appeal regulations in FY 1999 to improve the overall process and to expedite the resolution of negotiability disputes and the issuance of decisions.

In setting performance goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001, the Authority has remained mindful of its customers' concerns over the timeliness of decisions. As a result, the Authority has set a relatively higher goal for FY 2000 to ensure that no more than 10 percent of the cases pending merits decisions by the Authority are over nine months old. Additionally, the Authority will conduct a review of the process for resolving exceptions to arbitration awards. In FY 2001, the Authority overage case goals will again be directed to improve timeliness. No more than 10 percent of the cases pending merits decisions by the Authority are to be over six months old. The Authority will also implement a training initiative to increase the parties' understanding of the Statute and FLRA procedures.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the three FLRA components responsible for resolving disputes.

The FLRA established quality standards and incorporated them into employees' performance plans, and subsequently confirmed that quality standards had been established and steps had been taken to improve quality. Using the FLRA performance management plan, the agency has maintained compliance with these standards.

In addition to targeting overage cases, the Authority maintained its focus on resolving issues and establishing comprehensive legal doctrine to help guide parties. In doing so, the Authority encouraged parties to resolve their dispute by means other than litigation. In order to maximize the clarity and stability of the law, in FY 1999 the Authority used several tools that sharpen the decision making process. These included: a case screening mechanism to identify cases for streamlined processing; techniques to identify relevant case law, issues, and potential problems prior to decision drafting; and forums in which Authority staff discuss recent case precedent and other issues of relevance to the Authority's ongoing work.

One measure of success in the Authority's continuing emphasis on the quality of its decisions is the extent to which its analysis is upheld by the Federal Courts. In FY 1999, the Authority obtained favorable results in both Supreme Court proceedings in which the Court reached the merits of Authority decisions. Furthermore, Authority decisions issued in the last four years and reviewed on the merits by Federal Courts were the subject of favorable appellate opinions in approximately 88% of the cases, as compared with an overall favorable rate of only 52% for Authority decisions reviewed in the preceding 16 years.

Nevertheless, the Authority recognizes the need to further define an effective measurement of its quality performance. In FY 1998, the Authority developed a comprehensive checklist to assist in the writing process. The checklist sets forth guidelines for a quality document. In FY 1999, the Authority experimented with the use of the checklist as a quality measurement tool. The checklist was modified in mid-FY 1999 and is being pilot tested through the first quarter of FY 2000. The FY 2000 goal is to develop a plan to ensure consistent compliance with established quality standards and evaluate the effectiveness of quality performance measures. The plan will include reviewing current quality standards; identifying and evaluating effective quality measures; identifying bench marks; identifying relevant baseline data; and identifying internal training needs based upon identified standards and measures.

The OGC published quality standards in unfair labor practice case processing in its newly revised ULP Case Handling Manual which was issued in October 1999. Prior to publication, OGC conducted a training conference for all OGC staff to ensure compliance with the established quality standards for case processing which are set forth in the ULP Manual.

Compliance with the quality standards is continually monitored in the OGC. In the regional offices, compliance is measured by: 1) peer review of case files and dispositive action recommendations; and 2) regional management review of investigatory practices and adherence to case handling procedures set forth in the ULP Manual. Each regional office defines its protocol to ensure ongoing quality review and to assess its effectiveness.

Effectiveness of quality performance measures at the OGC National Office is assessed through the appeals review of Regional Director decisions not to issue a complaint; review of complaints and the outcome of cases that proceed to trial; dismissal letter review of cases that are not appealed; and the review of settlement agreements. Feedback on the effectiveness of quality review measures is provided to Regional Directors during quarterly OGC management meetings.

Quality standards for the processing of representation petitions have also been implemented by OGC. The effectiveness of these standards is assessed in the review of representation decision and orders, election agreements, certifications, notices of hearings and advice memoranda submissions.

The Panel's effectiveness in meeting its quality standards is measured in a number of ways. The number of complete and partial voluntary settlements which the Panel assists its customers in achieving is one measure of the quality of its mediation services. In FY 1999, the Panel increased the percentage of cases where jurisdiction was asserted from the previous fiscal year, as well as the number of cases where face-to-face assistance was provided, and ultimately where complete settlements were achieved. Where settlements do not occur, and written decisions are imposed on the parties, the number of requests for clarification and/or reconsideration of such decisions is a measure of their quality, i.e., that they are easily understandable, and provide clear rationale supporting the ultimate outcome. In FY 1999, in only two of the 33 written panel decisions did a party request clarification and/or reconsideration. Another measure of the quality of its written decisions is the number of times the Authority overturns a Panel decision on legal grounds on appeal from an employer. There were no such instances in FY 1999. These measures of the quality of the services it performs are in addition to the Panel checklist developed to ensure the quality of its initial investigations of requests for assistance.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by OGC.

The new ULP regulations for pre-complaint activities were issued and implemented on November 30, 1998, and are applicable to any ULP charge pending or filed after January 1999. The purpose of these regulations is to facilitate dispute resolution and to simplify, clarify and improve the processing of ULP charges.

The OGC issued a Federal Register notice of proposed rule making on August 24, 1998, to revise the regulations regarding prevention, resolution, and investigation of unfair labor practice (ULP) disputes. Prior to adoption of the final rules, a series of meetings was conducted across the country to solicit input from FLRA customers. After considering all comments received, OGC issued final regulations on November 30, 1998, which became effective January 1, 1999. The revised regulations codify and integrate the use of alternative dispute resolution services in resolving ULP cases. The entire package is to assist labor and management in developing collaborative relationships and to provide dispute resolution services.

The OGC also conducted internal training for staff, and external training for labor and management representatives regarding effective use of the case handling procedures and the ADR processes set forth in the regulations. In May 1999, OGC held an all-employee ULP Investigatory Training Conference that focused on developing employees' investigatory skills, and introducing employees to additional investigatory methods and the revised ULP regulations. The OGC also developed an Unfair Labor Practice Case Handling Manual that addresses the prevention, resolution, and investigation of unfair labor practice disputes. The ULP Case Handling Manual provides operational and procedural guidance to both OGC staff and the parties. This Manual is being offered for sale by the Government Printing Office and is available on the FLRA web site.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the Authority.

The Authority completed the revision of its negotiability regulations in FY 1999; the final regulations became effective April 1, 1999. The revisions reflect the Authority's goal of improving and expediting negotiability proceedings. Significant aspects of the regulations include: 1) post-petition conferences designed to narrow and clarify issues; 2) revision of procedures to enable the Authority to resolve all aspects of a dispute, if necessary; and 3) clarification of the responsibilities of each party.

The Authority initiated the negotiability regulation revision process in FY 1998 by establishing a task force to study and evaluate the policies and procedures concerning negotiability proceedings then in effect. The task force convened meetings with interested parties and requested public comment. After the proposed regulations were published, the Authority held additional meetings to receive comments on its proposed revision. The Authority incorporated into the final regulations many of the suggestions offered during the revision process.

As part of its implementation plan, the Authority also conducted extensive training to assist parties in understanding their responsibilities under the revised regulations. Prior to the effective date of the regulations, training seminars were conducted with union and management officials in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, DC. Additional outreach was provided upon request to individual agencies and unions. In total, Authority staff conducted 15 training sessions on the regulations in FY 1999. To further assist parties, the Authority developed a printed guide, as well as a training video on the new regulations. The Authority also provided training to FLRA staff on the regulations prior to their effective date. In the first six months under the new procedures, preliminary numbers show that, after Authority involvement, 33 percent of the cases filed under the new regulations, and not dismissed for procedural reasons, were quickly resolved by the parties and, therefore, withdrawn.

The Authority established a performance goal for FY 2000 to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the revised negotiability regulations.
 

FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 2:

To effectively use and promote alternative methods of dispute resolution and avoidance to reduce the costs of conflict in the Federal labor-management relations community.

Summary: In order to accomplish the FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 2, FLRA established seven performance goals within its FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan. The FLRA met six, and partially met one of the performance goals.

The FY 1999 performance goals were implemented through the FLRA's Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Program, which was established to promote alternative dispute resolution (ADR) efforts by integrating ADR into all of the FLRA's case processes. The CADR Program provides overall coordination and support for the FLRA's labor-management cooperation and ADR efforts. The program assists agencies and unions in improving their relationships, preventing disputes before they become cases and crafting ways to informally resolve disputes in pending cases. This includes interest-based conflict resolution and intervention services in pending unfair labor practice cases, representation cases, negotiability appeals, and impasse bargaining disputes. The CADR Program also provides facilitation, training and education services to help labor and management develop collaborative relationships. The CADR Office provides support and guidance for all types of ADR efforts and coordinates cross-component activities.

CADR program services are provided by all of the FLRA components -- the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) through the seven regional offices and OGC National Office; the Authority through the Office of the Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and the CADR Office; and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.

During FY 1999, all FLRA components made considerable progress in furthering Strategic Plan Goal 2. The FLRA provided alternative dispute resolution (ADR) training, facilitation and education services to enable the parties to constructively manage their own workplace disputes. Intervention services were also offered and provided to successfully resolve pending ULP, representation, negotiability, and bargaining impasse disputes. A model program was established in OGC including an ADR Tool Kit designed to assist OGC employees in providing ADR services. Finally, FLRA designed a database to collect data on training and education to evaluate ADR services provided by FLRA staff. As one measure of the program success, FLRA was chosen as a semi-finalist for mainstreaming its CADR program -- one of 98 from a pool of 1,609 applicants -- in the Innovations in American Government Awards Program of the Ford Foundation and administered by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government.

The following describes the specific accomplishments related to each of these seven performance goals.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed by all FLRA components, as part of the CADR Program, and implemented primarily by OGC, the Panel and the CADR Office.

This performance goal served a two-fold purpose in providing CADR services: 1) to resolve pending disputes; and 2) to provide parties with tools to constructively manage their workplace disputes. The services provided by the FLRA components included training on statutory issues, interest-based bargaining, partnership, alternative dispute resolution and relationship building. Additionally, assistance was given in dispute resolution in pending unfair labor practice, representation, bargaining impasse and negotiability disputes.

During FY 1999, FLRA, primarily through the OGC and its Senior Dispute Resolution Specialists in each regional office, conducted 269 training, facilitation and relationship building sessions for 14,875 participants in FY 1999. The OGC also provided 1387 case-related intervention services, and the CADR Office performed 17 negotiability case-related intervention sessions. The OALJ successfully settled 144 pending cases through its OALJ Settlement Program. The Panel provided face-to-face assistance in 65 cases in FY 1999, including initial investigations. Supplemented by telephone mediation, its efforts resulted in complete settlements in 60 of the 159 cases it closed during the fiscal year.

In one example of a difficult, but successful, intervention, the Panel Member resolved a dispute concerning numerous issues which arose during negotiations over an employer's proposed implementation of a pilot Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Inspection Models Project, instituting new methods, including the staffing of inspection lines, for the prevention, control, and correction of food safety hazards in meat and poultry plants. A 3-day informal conference was conducted which ultimately resulted in a complete settlement of the parties' impasse. In addition to helping the parties avoid further costly litigation in other forums, such interventions serve to educate the parties in how to develop constructive labor-management relationships.

Additional highlights included: 1) CADR training sessions provided as part of FLRA's 20^th Anniversary National Training Conferences; 2) 15 FLRA training sessions conducted to assist parties in understanding the new negotiability regulations; 3) several training sessions conducted at labor-relation conferences and seminars; and 4) numerous town hall meetings and breakfast meetings conducted by the OGC to provide the parties with guidance and information on OGC policies and processes, rights and obligations of labor and management under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, and case processing under the new ULP pre-complaint regulations. Additional guidance and policies, including the EEO Guidance and the Labor Relations Strategy Guidance, were issued by the General Counsel. These provided substantive information as well as approaches for parties to resolve disputes constructively without having to resort to litigation and to develop constructive labor-management relationships.

FLRA performance goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001 will continue to focus on providing training, facilitation and intervention services to resolve pending disputes, and to provide the parties with tools to constructively manage their workplace disputes. Beginning in FY 2000, the new ADR data base will collect information on ADR training and education services, and customer evaluations to assist in measuring actual performance.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met as ADR services were offered to the parties in every negotiability case pending before the Authority. The goal was developed by the Authority component and implemented by the CADR Office.

During FY 1999, ADR services were offered in every negotiability case before the Authority. The parties accepted these services in 68% of the cases; and in 56% of these cases, the parties successfully settled. This is a considerable increase over FY 1997 when the parties accepted CADR services in negotiability cases in only 15% of the cases.

When a negotiability appeals case is filed, CADR Office staff members call both parties involved in the case to explain and offer ADR services. Under the new negotiability regulations, parties participate in post-petition conferences during which Authority staff members have a second opportunity to offer ADR services. During FY 1999, parties agreed to use ADR services in 29 cases. In 17 of these cases, the parties resolved their issues and the case was withdrawn. In the remaining 12 cases, CADR Office staff helped parties through telephone conferences clarify and narrow issues and communicate more effectively.

Based upon FY 1999 experience, FLRA has modified this goal for future years. The original purpose was to offer ADR services in every negotiability case pending before the Authority. In fact, ADR services are only provided when both parties voluntarily accept the services. Accordingly, the FY 2000 and FY 2001 goals have been modified to "offer and encourage the use of collaborative and alternative dispute resolution services in every negotiability case pending before the Authority." We will monitor the percentage of cases parties accept the services offered, and the reasons why parties accept and/or decline the services and settle cases.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met as ADR services were offered in every unfair labor practice case pending before OALJ. The goal was developed and implemented by the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ).

During FY 1998, new ULP regulations for litigation (post-complaint activities) were implemented which formalized the Settlement Judge Program and established the Pre-hearing Conference Program. In every case received by the OALJ, parties are advised that the OALJ Settlement Program is available to them. During FY 1999, the parties accepted these services in 63% of the cases; and in 81% of these cases, the parties successfully settled.

Both the Settlement Judge Program and the Pre-hearing Conference Program have helped parties narrow and focus issues. As a result of these efforts parties reach agreement on differences concerning witnesses, exhibits and facts, and often achieve full settlement. These programs have clearly helped parties reach settlement earlier in the process than they had previously. In FY 1999, only five cases were settled at hearing as compared to nine cases in FY 1998, 29 in FY 1997, and 59 in FY 1996. Resolving cases earlier saves time and money for all parties involved. As noted earlier, 144 cases were successfully settled through the OALJ programs.

Based upon FY 1999 experience, FLRA has modified this goal for future years. The original purpose was to offer ADR services in every unfair labor practice case pending before OALJ. As noted above, ADR services are only provided when both parties voluntarily accept the services. Accordingly, the FY 2000 and FY 2001 goals have been modified to "offer and encourage the use of collaborative and alternative dispute resolution services in every unfair labor practice appeal pending before the OALJ." We will monitor the percentage of cases parties accept the services offered, and the reasons why parties accept and/or decline the services and settle cases.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the OGC with assistance from the CADR Office.

In its new pre-complaint unfair labor practice regulations, implemented November 30, 1998, OGC incorporated its ADR services program. Under this program, OGC promotes stable and productive Federal sector labor-management relationships by providing parties facilitation, intervention, training, and education programs both before, and after, a charge has been filed. These programs emphasize the need for a knowledge of labor law combined with an understanding of labor relations.

In conjunction with the implementation of the new regulations, OGC developed an Unfair Labor Practice Case Handling Manual (the ULP Manual) and an ADR Tool Kit for use by the regional offices. These resources are a model for regional office employees to promote and provide consistent, high quality ADR program services. The ULP Manual guides staff in preventing, resolving, processing, and investigating ULP charges and contains ADR program descriptions for OGC customers. It also incorporates and references the codification into the regulations of the OGC's ADR policies on facilitation, intervention, training, and education.

The ADR Tool Kit is a resource document that provides information, options and suggestions to assist OGC employees in delivering ADR programs. It includes materials on: 1) the OGC ADR program; 2) the principles of collaborative labor-management relationships; 3) the use of an interest-based problem-solving model to resolve labor-management relations disputes and improve relationships; and 4) the delivery of alternative dispute resolution services.

The OGC also conducted a training conference to ensure that all OGC professional employees are familiar with the policies and procedures in the ULP Manual, including specifically the ADR services, and the information contained in the Tool Kit.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was partially met. The goal was developed and implemented by OGC and the CADR Office.

During FY 1999, substantial progress was made towards accomplishing the performance objective of increasing the effectiveness of each program through evaluation and implementation of appropriate changes. Comprehensive evaluation forms were developed to facilitate evaluation of program activity. These evaluation forms are distributed to participants in the ADR programs and then reviewed to determine program effectiveness. ADR programs are continuously reviewed and amended based on feedback from participants and FLRA providers.

In addition, substantial progress was made on developing an automated ADR services case tracking system designed to assist in evaluating the program. Consistent definitions were developed for training, intervention, facilitation and education services to standardize agency reports, increase accuracy of reporting and facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of services.

While much was achieved during FY 1999 in support of this performance goal, FLRA fell short of this goal due to delays in identifying, collecting and organizing ADR data. This delay was, in large part, due to the need to develop consistent definitions of the information to be collected.

During FY 2000, a fully developed ADR services database management system will be used to collect and assess data and to identify and implement necessary changes. When complete, this system will provide easier access to all data necessary to further analyze ADR activities. In FY 2000 and FY 2001, FLRA will use this ADR information system to continue to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of the ADR services.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the Authority component -- primarily through the CADR Office.

In order to accomplish this goal, FLRA took the following actions: 1) ensuring early intervention efforts by CADR Office staff in pending negotiability cases; 2) providing detailed information about the availability of CADR Office services in the Authority negotiability appeals regulations; and 3) including information on the availability of CADR Office services in forms and training materials on negotiability appeals.

To ensure that opportunities to use ADR are provided as early as possible, the Authority instituted a requirement that the CADR Office contacts parties to offer ADR intervention services prior to the post-petition conference (described below). If the parties agree to use CADR services, the post-petition conference is postponed pending the outcome of the CADR intervention.

The newly revised negotiability regulations include a post-petition conference to provide parties with an opportunity to further define, clarify and discuss the proposals. The conference provides the Authority with a clearer record on which to base its decision, if that becomes necessary. It also presents the parties with an opportunity to increase their understanding of the proposals and the interests behind the proposals. Since the conference allows parties to hear each other's perspectives, it also provides a forum for potential settlement discussions. If more extensive discussions appear useful, the parties are encouraged to use CADR services and the case may be suspended until an intervention is held.

Preliminary numbers show that after CADR involvement, one-third of the cases filed under the new regulations, and not dismissed for procedural reasons, were resolved by the parties and withdrawn.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by OGC.

As noted above, OGC issued new ULP regulations for pre-complaint activities which were implemented on November 30, 1998. The purpose of these regulations is to facilitate dispute resolution and to simplify, clarify, and improve the processing of ULP charges at the pre-complaint stage.

The OGC conducted a week-long nationwide training conference for all OGC and CADR Office employees, which included training on applying ADR principles and programs contained in the new unfair labor practice pre-complaint regulations during the investigation of ULP charges. Regional office employees were also trained on applying interest based principles in investigations of ULP charges and how to use these principles in interventions consistent with the regulations.

The OGC developed a new ADR service described through issuance of a Guidance Memorandum to the Regional Directors on how to develop labor relations strategic plans. The Guidance, which is available to the public and is on the FLRA web site, sets forth a new ADR service consistent with the regulations that helps union and management representatives identify their labor relations goals, determine the strategy needed to reach those goals, and develop the actions needed to carry out that strategy.
 

FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 3:

To maintain FLRA's internal systems and processes to support a continually improving, highly effective and efficient organization with the flexibility to meet program needs.

Summary: In order to accomplish the FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 3, FLRA established three performance goals in its FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan. The FLRA met two of these performance goals and substantially met the other goal.

The three performance goals focused on: 1) implementing an integrated agency-wide case tracking system; 2) maintaining an updated information infrastructure; and 3) improving electronic access to FLRA decisions, guidance and research tools. In addition to the three performance goals, the paramount focus for all information technology activities during FY 1999 was to ensure that all agency hardware and software was Year 2000 (Y2K) compliant.

A significant amount of progress was made in support of the FLRA commitment to maintain sound internal systems and processes -- primarily through information technology improvements. Specifically, FLRA: 1) implemented a Y2K remediation plan to ensure that all agency systems were Y2K compliant on January 1, 2000; 2) installed new computers to bring all agency hardware to the Pentium level; 3) replaced outdated agency software including a conversion of its network operating system and word processing and electronic mail programs; 4) designed and implemented several data bases including the design of an agency-wide Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services database system for educational and training assistance activities; and 5) expanded its web site to include better access to agency decisions, forms, guidance and policies.

The FLRA relies heavily on its technology to perform a number of critical functions. These include: 1) producing work products including case decisions; 2) providing electronic research and electronic communications capabilities to agency staff; 3) monitoring, measuring and reporting on the status of workload; 4) projecting workload trends through the use of computer models; and 5) measuring performance. The FLRA commitment and investment in technology will continue to be reflected in performance goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001.

The following describes the specific results related to each of the three FY 1999 performance goals.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was substantially met. The goal was developed and implemented by the Information Resources Management (IRM) Division staff, including support provided by outside contractors.

In order to accomplish this performance goal, FLRA developed an action plan designed to: 1) complete Y2K renovations of all case tracking systems; 2) develop and implement new Authority component case tracking systems; 3) perform an additional level of maintenance on OGC and FSIP case tracking systems; 4) develop an agency-wide ADR services database system for educational and training assistance activities; and 5) develop a plan for further integration and data sharing among all component case tracking systems. These tasks constituted the largest IRM efforts during FY 1999.

At the end of FY 1999, FLRA completed three of the five tasks -- specifically, the Y2K renovations of all case tracking systems; additional level of maintenance on OGC and FSIP case tracking systems; and a plan for further integration and data sharing among all component case tracking systems.

The other two tasks (Authority case tracking and ADR services) were substantially completed by the end of FY 1999. The fourth task, designing and implementing revised Authority component case tracking systems, was substantially completed. Two major systems, for the Authority and Office of Administrative Law Judges, were designed and fully implemented. Two small systems for the Office of Solicitor were designed and are in testing. The FLRA completed the design of the fifth task, an agency-wide ADR services database system for educational and training assistance activities and customer evaluations, but this database was not fully implemented. The remaining elements of these two tasks will be completed in early FY 2000.

Several factors contributed to the delayed completion of the two Office of Solicitor systems and the completed design, but delayed implementation, of the larger ADR services database system. First, all priority efforts were focused on the completion of Y2K remediation activities in all database systems. Next, the need to integrate unanticipated enhancements in the Authority component systems and the ADR services system required significant time and staff resources. The Authority systems included a significant system enhancement to accommodate revised negotiability regulations issued in April 1999. The revision was needed to permit the immediate collection of new data and to facilitate an analysis of the regulation's effectiveness during the first year of operation. An entire supplement to collect and retrieve customer evaluations was added to the original ADR system design, requiring further development time and staff resources.

FLRA performance goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001 will continue to focus on maintaining and further refining the agency case tracking system to ensure accurate case tracking and reporting and critical workload measurements of agency program activities.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the IRM Division staff, with assistance and advice from the FLRA Technology Committees which consist of management and union officials representing FLRA users.

In order to accomplish this goal, FLRA took a number of actions during FY 1999. First, the Y2K remediation plan for commercial off-the-shelf technology resources was implemented including the replacement of out-of-date computers. Second, FLRA upgraded and standardized its network operating system with Windows NT 4.0. The agency also upgraded its word processing software to Corel WordPerfect 8, and its electronic mail software to Microsoft Exchange and Outlook 98. The agency replaced the ISDN data network with dedicated leased lines and facilitated the use of portable computers to function as both desktop and portable systems for regional staff. By the end of FY 1999, the hardware and software that constituted the FLRA information infrastructure was Y2K compliant.

As a result of actions taken in FY 1999, 100% of the agency hardware was at Pentium level capacity. This is a significant accomplishment and improvement over the baseline year of FY 1997 when only 50% of the agency hardware was at Pentium level capacity. In accomplishing this goal, the agency was able to ensure that all FLRA hardware was Y2K compliant as noted above.

The FLRA established performance goals for FY 2000 to ensure FLRA systems were Y2K compliant by January 1, 2000 (successfully completed), and to upgrade the agency infrastructure in accordance with the Year One segment of the agency life cycle management plan. The performance goal for FY 2001 implements the Year Two segment of the agency life cycle management plan.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the IRM Division staff, with assistance and advice from the FLRA Technology Committees.

During FY 1999, FLRA developed and successfully implemented an action plan that focused on improving internal and external research tools, FLRA publications, and library services. FLRA developed and integrated a new bound volume publication format and procedures for all FLRA decisions published on or after December 1998. The new format produces FLRA case decisions in twin column format that will ultimately result in a more cost effective production of FLRA bound volumes and other research publications. The FLRA also completed a review of agency research and library services to improve staff research tools.

The most significant accomplishments involved expanding and improving the FLRA web site. The FLRA home page provides access to Authority decisions, OGC policy guidance, FSIP decisions, FLRA Bulletins and other information. During FY 1999, three major improvements were made to the home page: 1) better access to recent FLRA decisions with enriched navigation and viewing functions; 2) forms that support new negotiability regulations; and 3) increased availability of OGC guidance issuances including the OGC ULP Manual.

The performance goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001 focus on testing and implementing web site based research, including searchable decisions, to ensure ease of use for the Federal labor relations community and FLRA staff.

FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 4:

To develop FLRA's human resources to ensure a continually improving, highly effective and efficient organization with the flexibility to meet program needs.

Summary: In order to accomplish the FLRA Strategic Plan Goal 4, FLRA established three performance goals in its FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan. The FLRA met all three goals.

The FLRA is committed to maintaining a workforce that is staffed with well-trained employees capable of responding to agency mission requirements. During FY 1999, FLRA took a number of actions to recruit, develop and retain skilled staff. These included design and implementation of: 1) core competencies and training plans for staff; 2) a Leadership Development program that offers leadership and management training to non-supervisory employees; 3) an employee orientation program for all new employees; and 4) performance management training designed to improve individual and organizational performance.

Despite meeting the three performance goals in support of Goal 4, it became apparent that the FY 1999 goals were too broad to quantify and measure outcomes. Therefore, the Goal 4 performance goals for FY 2000 and FY 2001 target more specific and better-defined outcomes.

The following describes the specific results related to each of the three FY 1999 performance goals.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the FLRA Human Resources Division, in coordination with all FLRA components.

During FY 1999, FLRA developed core competencies and career progression plans for paralegals and administrative support personnel. Similar plans were designed for attorneys and labor relations specialists in FY 1998. Plans are underway to input competency information into a database for use in developing training plans and recruitment/staffing plan. The FLRA also developed performance indicators to improve agency hiring and recruitment practices to include: 1) the amount of time it takes to issue vacancy announcements and selection certificates; 2) reasons for staff turnover; 3) affirmative action recruitment data; and 4) quality of training. During FY 2000, FLRA will collect and review this data.

The FLRA successfully conducted a new employee orientation for new hires. The training from the previous year was redesigned based on input from previous attendees' recommendations and identified competency needs. The orientation was combined with Employee Recognition Day to highlight employee contributions.

The agency provided in-house skills maintenance and development training as described below. Beyond this, the agency funded over 240 training opportunities for employees to attend skills and developmental training from sources outside FLRA including sending two senior executives to the Federal Executive Institute. The training opportunities included topics such as: Mediation; Alternatives to Litigation; Brief Writing; Science and Art of Persuasion; Speaking with Confidence; Time Management; Internet Research; Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Overview; Computer Programming; and Human Resources. Employees were also offered training opportunities to attend conferences such as the Society of Federal Labor Relations Professionals, the Society of Labor and Employee Relations and Blacks In Government.

The Authority case writers received training on collaborative case writing and conducting negotiability conferences. New employees received additional training on the basic aspects of labor relations law and computer assisted research training skills development. The CADR Office also provided mentoring training in CADR intervention to Authority case writers.

OGC employees received training on the revised ULP investigatory regulations, the ULP Case Processing Manual, and interest-based bargaining skills. The senior dispute resolution specialists received training on ADR skills development. Senior litigation specialists received training in understanding of significant legal issues confronting OGC. Representation specialists received training on significant representation issues confronting OGC. Two senior executives attended the Center for Creative Leadership for advanced management training, and five employees attended the Harvard Negotiation Project to enhance their problem solving skills and techniques.

As noted earlier, this FY 1999 performance goal was broad and difficult to measure. Hence, more specific performance goals have been developed for FY 2000 and FY 2001.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was developed and implemented by the FLRA Human Resources Division, in coordination with all FLRA components.

During FY 1999, FLRA successfully completed the development of a comprehensive Agency-wide leadership development. This Program is focused on providing leadership and managerial skills training and development opportunities for non-supervisory employees in all three of the FLRA components -- Authority, OGC and FSIP. The Authority and FSIP accepted five employees into the Program in May 1999. The OGC segment of the Program was completed in FY 1999 and will be implemented in FY 2000.

The FY 2000 performance goals are to: 1) evaluate the first year of the FLRA Leadership Development program and make changes as appropriate; 2) select additional Authority/FSIP employees to enter into the program; and 3) implement the program in the OGC.
 

Performance Analysis: This goal was met. The goal was designed and implemented by all FLRA components with assistance from the FLRA Human Resources Division.

The true measurement of success in achieving this performance goal is the fact that FLRA met or exceeded 22 of the 28 performance goals in its FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan. In many instances, actual FY 1999 performance greatly exceeded performance in prior fiscal years.

In 1997, FLRA implemented a performance management plan that links organizational goals and performance with individual goals and performance. Consistent with this plan, the FLRA offices developed the FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan goals which clearly define organizational performance expectations. After the organizational goals were developed, individual work plans were then developed for each FLRA employee specifying the individual performance expectations to support the organizational goals. Each office conducted monthly and quarterly reviews of organizational progress. During the year, two employee progress reviews and the annual performance appraisal were conducted.

During FY 1999, FLRA provided four training seminars, as well as three "brown-bag" lunch seminars designed to maintain an effective performance management system that improves individual and organizational performance. Conducting Progress Reviews training was provided to supervisors and managers in the headquarters and Washington Regional Office. Training was also offered to administrative support personnel on Understanding the Performance Management System and Making it Work for You. A primary training instructional premise of these training courses was the importance of communication between employees and managers. Both courses emphasized the importance of understanding clear performance objectives and expectations between managers and employees. Training was offered to all headquarters managers and supervisors on Developing Effective Performance Management Plans. The brown-bag lunch topics were: Burnout -- Hitting the Wall; Succeed by Listening; and Managers as Mediators.

The FY 2000 performance goal is to continue to improve individual and organizational performance. The FY 2001 performance goal is to evaluate the individual and organizational measurements and make appropriate changes.