In 1993 the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) conducted a survey among its customers to examine how well it performed its mission and to identify the needs of its customers. The results of that survey reflected a clear need to improve the effectiveness of the processes used by the OGC to carry out its statutory mission.
Beginning in April 1994, General Counsel Swerdzewski initiated several projects to identify areas where there was inconsistency among the Regions in case processing and areas where employees could improve the quality of the work. He also asked Regional Directors to develop an action plan to improve customer service in their Regions consistent with the results of the survey and subsequently incorporated many of the projects into the OGC's Strategic Plan. He scheduled town meetings in each regional office city and has since continued to maintain a regular schedule of town meetings in other cities. General Counsel Swerdzewski also issued major policies to address concerns about inconsistency between the Regions and to improve dispute resolution opportunities. Finally, the entire OGC staff was trained on interest based bargaining, facilitation, collaboration and alternative dispute resolution. These alternative dispute resolution services were incorporated into a number of pilot projects on case handling, including the 1995 revisions to the Representation Case Handling Regulations and the recently published revisions to the Unfair Labor Practice Regulations.
The questions in the Fiscal Year 1998 FLRA Customer Survey pertaining to the functions of the OGC were designed to measure the success of the General Counsel's policies, procedures and initiatives that were developed after the 1993 Survey. The results reflect that the initiatives implemented by General Counsel Swerdzewski following the 1993 Survey have significantly improved the quality and consistency of the services provided by the Regional Offices to its constituents. However, these results also indicate additional initiatives are needed to further improve the service provided to OGC customers.
Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Cases
The Fiscal Year 1998 Survey Results reflected that the Regional Offices were effective at providing information about the investigative process (59% agreement rating); explaining the types of evidence needed for the investigation (51% agreement rating), and giving the parties an opportunity to provide relevant evidence (73% agreement rating). There was relatively little difference between the parties' response rates to these questions.
The results to questions about the quality of the Regional Offices' written work, such as dismissal letters and complaints, were also positive. Responses to questions about the effectiveness of Regional Office personnel orally communicating with the parties about their cases were generally positive and showed significant improvement from the 1993 Survey. For example, respondents to questions about the withdrawal solicitation process gave consistently positive ratings to questions about the effectiveness of the Region at explaining the decisional process and options available to the parties in non-merit cases.
Respondents also gave positive response rates to questions related to the settlement efforts by the Regional Offices. More than 70% of the respondents who participated in an unfair labor practice case in 1996 and/or 1997 were involved in a case that was settled. The majority of these cases were settled during the investigative stage. Response rates to questions about the Regional Offices' settlement efforts and the effectiveness of the settlements were similar and reflected improvement from the 1993 survey. Respondents stated the settlement met their interests (59% agreement rating), resolved their dispute (53% agreement rating), and provided a practical solution (63% agreement rating) and a meaningful remedy (45% agreement rating). Sixty-one percent (61%) of the respondents who answered these questions stated that the Regional Office considered their interests and placed the appropriate amount of emphasis on resolving the dispute (51%). However, responses to questions related to the actual impact of the Regional Office's efforts to resolve disputes and improve relationships were less positive.
Responses to questions about the quality of service provided by the agent reflected a marked improvement from the ratings received to similar questions in the 1993 survey. Responses to questions about fair treatment, handling of the investigation and courtesy received high ratings. However, there was little change in the response rates given for knowledge of the Statute, regulations and applicable case law.
The General Counsel's initiatives of conducting town meetings and issuing policies and guidances on a wide range of issues that were implemented since 1994 proved to be very successful. The survey results reflected that these initiatives assisted the parties to carry out their responsibilities, understand and apply Authority case law, encourage alternative approaches for dispute resolution, and provide useful information about the FLRA. The town meetings also provided useful information to the parties about OGC guidances and policies, and gave the parties the opportunity to have face to face contact with the OGC and the Regional Office staff.
Representation Cases
Representation cases processed in the Regional Offices received higher (more positive) ratings than the ULP response rates. More than 61% of the respondents stated that petitions were processed in a timely manner. More significantly, more than 74% of the respondents who answered these questions stated that hearings were conducted timely and 83% stated that elections were scheduled timely. Respondents were not as positive about the timeliness of Regional Director Decisions and Orders. Only 54% stated they were issued timely.
Responses to questions about the quality of handling representation cases, including elections and hearings, were uniformly high. Agreement response rates ranged from 58% ratings ("the meetings I attended to narrow and resolve the underlying representation issues were helpful") to 91% (in hearings - "I was given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and review all documentary evidence"). Similarly, responses to questions about the quality of service provided by the agent were also high and showed significant improvement since the 1993 survey. The complex novel issues resulting from agency reorganizations suggested that this program area is one where knowledge and communication are crucial to its success.
Initiatives Explored in the Survey
The Fiscal Year 1998 Survey asked respondents four questions relating to initiatives to revise the OGC's investigatory procedures in the ULP regulations. Specific questions included whether the General Counsel should revise the investigatory procedures in the ULP regulations to require the parties to: 1) attempt to resolve the dispute before a ULP can be filed with the FLRA (59% agreement rating), and 2) meet with the Regional Office personnel to resolve their dispute after the Regional Director decides a case has merit, but prior to issuing a complaint (68% agreement rating). Two other questions concerned initiatives to cooperate during an investigation. Eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondents who answered these questions agreed that the General Counsel should revise the investigatory procedures in the ULP regulations to require the parties to cooperate. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the respondents agreed that parties should be required to cooperate in exchange for disclosing information with the other parties before the Regional Director decides if a case has merit.
Notwithstanding the positive results, the Fiscal Year 1998 Survey Results raised five issues that warrant further review. The results reflected a need to:
Less than 50% of the respondents who answered questions relating to the timeliness of processing unfair labor practice charges in the OGC stated they were processed in a timely manner. Specifically,
a. 38% of the respondents agreed that the investigation was processed in a timely manner;
b. 39% stated a decision on an appeal of a Regional Director's refusal to issue complaint was made within a reasonable time; and
c. 44% stated the trial was convened timely.
Further improvement in the quality of the services will also contribute to the parties' understanding of case handling processes and procedures, thus, ultimately improving communication between the parties and the Regional Offices.
ULP Cases
The results reflected that while the agents were effective at providing information about the investigative process and the decisional process, the Regional Offices were not as effective at keeping the parties informed about the status of the investigation or the reasons for issuing complaints. Only 43% believed that the Regional Offices were effective at keeping the parties informed about the investigation. The results suggested that respondents believed that they were informed about the case initially, but not again until the Regional Office was ready to take disposition. Written comments also suggested that agency representatives and some union representatives believed that they are not given an adequate opportunity to provide evidence or respond to the allegations. Some stated that the only contact they received from the Regional Office was the initial contact. The demographics of these respondents suggested that this perception was more prevalent among the parties who filed infrequently.(1) The high filers, or the parties who participated in more than 30 ULPs in a year, appeared to be more informed generally about the status of their investigations and the decisional process with one exception: complaint issuance. High filers, as a group, expressed greater disagreement than other respondents that the basis for a Regional Director's decision to issue complaint was explained to them before the complaint was issued. An even smaller percent of high filers believed the complaint adequately advised them about the facts, issues and theory of the alleged violation (46% compared to 55%).
The disparate ratings among the different parties in certain questions identified other communication issues. Overall, the responses to questions about the withdrawal solicitation process were relatively high, including responses to questions about whether the agent had informed the party that the Regional Director had made a decision on the case; the right of the party to have the Regional Director make a decision on the case, and the right to appeal a dismissal. However, there was significant disparity among the parties' responses to these questions ranging from high agreement responses from agency respondents to moderate responses from union and individual respondents.
Although the overall responses to questions relating to the quality of the written work issued by the Regional Offices (such as dismissal letters and complaints in ULPs) were high, the parties' views in this area varied also:
a. 77% who received dismissal letters and answered questions about the quality of the dismissal letter stated they understood the dismissal letter even if they did not agree with it (note: 94%A, 67%U, 58%I)(2) ; 63% stated that the letter explained the factual and legal basis for deciding the charge lacked merit (86%A, 47%U, 34%I).
b. 55% who were a party to a case in which the Regional Director authorized complaint believed the complaint adequately advised them about the facts, issues and theory of the violation (46%A, 66%U, 34%I).
The disparity among the parties, particularly the lower agreement ratings from unions and individuals was disturbing as union and individual respondents are more likely to be the charging party in most ULP cases. Conversely, although it may be reasonable that agency representatives who are usually the Respondents in complaint cases would know less about the basis for the Regional Director's decision to issue a complaint, it is not unreasonable to inform them about the basis of the complaint. This variance is being addressed in the revised ULP Case Handling Manual. Additionally, the post-complaint regulations that were implemented in October 1997 requires pre-hearing disclosure in every case.
Representation Cases
Because representation cases are the foundation of any labor-management relationship, it is imperative that OGC employees are knowledgeable and provide the same quality of service that is expected of employees when they process ULPs. Thus, any customer service standards that are created will be applicable to all cases, including representation cases processed in the Regional Offices.
Although the respondents believed the settlements obtained with Regional Office assistance were practical, meaningful and considered their views, the respondents were less in agreement that the settlements or efforts of the Regional Offices actually resolved their disputes. Although responses to these questions reflected significant improvement from the poor ratings received in the 1993 survey, more work needs to be done.
The responses of the high filers defined the issue: respondents were less positive about the effectiveness of a settlement than they were about the Regional Offices' settlement efforts. Additionally, comments suggested that some parties believed some agents were too aggressive in their efforts to settle a case rather than identify whether or not the settlement actually resolved the dispute or the case. Comments also suggested that there is a perception that the agents are too aggressive about settling cases before determining what the dispute is about.
The survey responses clearly reflected the settlement of a case does not contribute to improving the parties' relationship. The results were convincing that the parties do not seek to improve their relationships when they file a ULP charge in the Regional Office. Rather they seek to resolve the dispute. However, the results reflected that improved relationships between labor and management result in the filing of fewer ULP charges.
The results showed that the parties prefer and the OGC is more successful when the parties seek the services of the GC through one of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services and training programs to assist in improving their relationship. A comparison of the results of this survey about the success of the OGC at improving the parties' relationships during case processing to the results of the 1995 survey conducted specifically among parties who participated in one of the GC's formal ADR training and facilitation programs was startling and convincing. Improving relationships may not be a realistic goal when processing cases, but may be one of the programs offered as part of the agency's ADR services.
The case intake in the OGC has dropped dramatically since 1992. The reasons were not explored in the survey. The survey provided few clues, other than the impact of the parties' personalities on their relationships, that could be correlated directly to filing charges. The results revealed that: (1) the settlement of a case did not significantly contribute to resolving disputes or improving relationships; (2) respondents did not believe that improving relationships should be a goal of case processing; and (3) the Authority's decisions have little or no effect on case filings.
That 38% of the surveys mailed were returned with nearly 100 pages of comments proves that the parties are interested in the success of the Federal labor-management relations program. The survey response rates confirmed that the parties believe that the Regions have improved their case processing procedures; applied the policies, procedures and guidances more consistently, and provided better quality service. Additionally, there are more ADR services provided in 1997 and 1998 than ever before. The results also suggested the parties are less discouraged by the case law than what was anticipated.
However, the response rates to the general question about satisfaction and the comments revealed conflicting views on the value of the program. This issue will be explored further.
The OGC has begun developing and implementing several initiatives to respond to the parties' concerns and interests raised in the survey. For example, many of the revisions to the investigatory procedures in the ULP regulations were driven by the discussions during Town Hall Meetings and the Customer Service Survey Results. These initiatives are outlined below:
a. incorporate procedures that encourage the parties to use a pre-filing procedure to try to resolve theiR disputes before filing charges. The revisions also state that Regional personnel are available to assist the parties in identifying the issue(s) and their interests, and in resolving the dispute.
b. provide for an alternative case processing procedure to attempt to resolve the allegations of a charge after it is filed. This procedure is voluntary and may only be undertaken upon agreement by the parties. When used, the Regional Office uses a problem-solving approach to assist the parties in resolving the dispute in lieu of initially investigating the particular facts and determining the merits of the charge.
c. continue the requirement that all persons are expected to cooperate during an investigation and delineate what is included within the requirement to cooperate.
d. codify the General Counsel's ADR services that are formal processes for assisting the parties to resolve disputes, improve relationships and obtain training on specific areas of interest.
Footnotes:
1. The majority of survey respondents filed between 1 - 5 charges a year and had between 6 - 10 years of experience in Federal sector labor-management relations.
2. (94%A=self-identified agency respondents, 67%U=self-identified union respondents, 58%I=self-identified individual respondents)
See Also: