In Fiscal Year 1998, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) conducted a comprehensive Customer Survey on the performance of two of its three primary components -- the Authority and the Office of the General Counsel.(1) The Survey was mailed in November 1997 to union representatives, agencies, and individuals who were parties before the FLRA during Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997. The Survey reached 4,405 of these parties; the FLRA received 1,674 responses.
The Survey was designed to measure the effectiveness of each of the programs administered by the FLRA, the impact of FLRA's decisions and the General Counsel's policies and guidance, and customer satisfaction with the FLRA's processes. As such, the Survey establishes a baseline for the Authority, and serves to measure the effectiveness of programs initiated by the Office of the General Counsel to improve services to its customers since its earlier 1993 survey.(2)
The Survey results are available in their entirety (150 pages, and appendices) on the FLRA's web site at www.flra.gov. These results are summarized below.
The Customer Survey indicated that the FLRA is doing a good job meeting the information needs of customers and also identified areas where customers would like further information. For example, respondents were supportive of information supplied by the Office of the General Counsel. Since 1994 the Office of the General Counsel has issued policies, guidance, and manuals to parties. Respondents using these materials found them clearly written (70%); providing a thorough discussion of legal issues (68%); helpful in understanding Authority case law (74%); and helpful in applying the Authority's case law (74%). Additionally, the face to face outreach of the General Counsel through a series of Town Meetings held across the country received favorable responses: 73% of the respondents attending such a meeting agreed that, as a result, they were better informed about the Authority and the Office of the General Counsel. The same percentage of respondents also agreed that such forums were a source of useful information regarding Authority decisions and General Counsel's policies and guidance.
Respondents also expressed support for the Authority to continue and expand using conferences, symposia, and training programs (92%), and informal meetings convened to discuss policies and procedures (88%). Similarly, respondents who used the FLRA web site indicated that they would benefit by the FLRA's web site adding the following features: FLRA forms (90%); full text of FLRA decisions (96%); and an electronic capability to search FLRA decisions (99%).
The FLRA will expand its efforts to meet the information needs of its customers. Most notably, given the interest expressed for conferences, symposia, and trainings, as part of the FLRA's 20th Anniversary commemoration, the FLRA will hold national conferences in 1999. The conferences will feature training on the Federal service labor relations program. A special focus will include regulatory changes in the last five years. In addition, the Authority is planning a series of training activities in connection with implementing its revised negotiability regulations.
The Office of the General Counsel will build on information from the Survey by continuing to hold town meetings and expanding these meetings to address those issues raised in the Survey and further discussed herein. The Office of the General Counsel will also continue efforts to improve communications with the parties in cases pending in the Regional Offices by defining Customer Standards in the planned revisions to the Unfair Labor Practice Case Handling Manual. The Office of the General Counsel is also developing a customer relations training program focusing on communication skills, as part of a comprehensive staff training program planned for 1999.
The FLRA's web site has added features requested by customers, notably case decisions and forms. Future changes will be made including the capability to search decisions by subject matter.
Respondents gave generally high marks to elements of processing matters before the Office of the General Counsel and the Authority. For example, in ULP cases, 73% of the respondents agreed that they were given an opportunity by the Regional Office to provide relevant information; an even higher percentage (80%) agreed that Regional Office employees were courteous and professional at all times during the investigation. In representation petitions filed with the Regional Offices, customers were also generally satisfied with services they received: 84% agreed that they had the opportunity to provide relevant information; 71% indicated that the Regional Office employee was helpful in explaining the requirements for processing petitions; and 81% agreed that they were treated fairly.
Responses to questions concerning the Authority's Office of Administrative Law Judges' Settlement Judge Program indicate its effectiveness. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the respondents who participated in the program disagreed with the assertion that their case would have been settled without the Settlement Judge's assistance. Seventy-four percent (74%) of the respondents indicated that they would use the Settlement Program again. In addition, in instances where cases went to hearing, respondents agreed the administrative law judge conducting the hearing gave them a full opportunity to present their case (76%); gave them an opportunity to challenge the case of the other side (71%); and conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner (68%).
The Authority's Office of Case Control (CCO) received high marks for case processing and customer service. For example, in negotiability cases, CCO staff were found by respondents to be courteous and professional (76%); knowledgeable about the law, regulations and case processing procedures (70%); and unbiased (70%).
Although generally pleased with the ratings given to the quality of work at the Regional Offices, the Office of the General Counsel has developed an action plan to continue the trends reflected in the Survey results. The Office of the General Counsel has issued revised ULP investigation regulations to improve case processing procedures and to codify the collaboration and alternative dispute resolution procedures currently used. Additionally, training programs to help employees improve investigatory, communication, and dispute resolution skills are being developed. These will be implemented during Fiscal Year 1999.
The high marks given to the Settlement Judge Program are consistent with informal feedback from customers and an earlier assessment of the program. As a result of this feedback, the Authority incorporated the program into its revised ULP litigation regulations, which became effective in Fiscal Year 1998. The FLRA has established the goal of offering the services of the Settlement Judge Program in all cases pending before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and providing such services in each case where parties agree to participate. In addition, to extend the benefits of direct communication between the parties, the Authority's revised ULP litigation regulations require pre-hearing conferences and discovery in cases proceeding to hearing. In those cases that proceed to hearing, these conferences are making it possible for the parties to exchange information, narrow the issues between them, and streamline the litigation.
Respondents to the Survey affirmed the quality of the various categories of FLRA decisions. For example, for those respondents who received ULP dismissal letters from the General Counsel, 77% agreed that they understood the ULP dismissal letter; 75% reported that they understood the standards for appeal. In addition, 75% agreed that Decisions and Orders in representation cases contained sufficient facts and legal analysis for them to understand the decisions.
With respect to decisions issued by the Authority, respondents reported that the Authority decisions describe what the dispute is about (87%); are easily understood (60%); establish useful guidelines for applying the law (61%); and explain the conclusions reached (69%). While generally satisfied overall, respondents were somewhat more positive about decisions in representation and arbitration cases than in ULP cases and negotiability appeals. For example, in representation and arbitration cases, 79% and 62% of respondents, respectively, agreed that they understood the Authority's reason for reaching a conclusion, even if not necessarily agreeing with the reasoning. Those agreeing with this statement decreased to 55% in ULP cases and 57% in negotiability cases.
Respondents indicated concerns about the length of time before cases are decided. For example, only 47% of respondents in representation petitions believed that Authority decisions were issued in a timely manner; this number fell to 27% when the question was asked generally about all categories of Authority decisions. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the respondents in ULP cases believed investigations conducted by the Office of the General Counsel were conducted timely. Regarding communications issues, 43% of respondents were also concerned about the timeliness of communications about the status of cases from the Office of the General Counsel. In contrast, respondents reported that the Office of the General Counsel was otherwise timely in conducting hearings (74%), elections (83%), and certification of elections (88%).
Although parties before the Authority indicated that they were dissatisfied with the timeliness of decisions, they also were unwilling to "trade" quality decisions for improved timeliness. In fact, 70% of respondents disagreed that it is helpful to issue a short form decision quickly in arbitration cases without a full explanation of the legal analysis. Additionally, 71% of the respondents agreed with the statement that "[i]t is helpful to include in the decision a thorough discussion of the reasons for the conclusions, even if it takes longer to issue the decision."
The FLRA is aware of concerns regarding timeliness. As part of its strategic plan, the Office of the General Counsel is developing a protocol for publishing its timeliness goals and communicating with parties regarding the status of their cases in a more timely manner.
The Authority has introduced steps to improve the efficiency of its decision-making process in order to reduce the length of time it takes to issue a decision. These include: using a centralized team of rotating staff case writers; expediting the review processes; tailoring pre-decisional work products; and assigning large cases to staff teams. As part of its strategic plan, the Authority has targeted a steep reduction in the number of overage cases. Recognizing that the length of decision time is particularly problematic in negotiability cases, in Fiscal Year 1999 the Authority is implementing new negotiability regulations designed to improve the overall process and expedite the resolution of negotiability disputes and issuance of decisions.
Regarding the use of short form decisions in arbitration cases, these were introduced to expedite the issuance of final decisions. As a result of the concerns indicated by the Survey, the Authority will reevaluate its earlier decision to use such short forms, including whether additional information can be provided in such decisions.
The Survey highlights that decisions issued in labor law cases resolving legal issues do not necessarily resolve underlying problems between the parties. This was most strikingly illustrated by answers to two questions: whether the decision decided the issues raised by the parties; and whether the decision resolved the dispute between parties. For all four types of proceedings before the Authority, answers were uniform in showing a wide gap between those agreeing with the statement that issues raised had been decided, and those agreeing that the dispute between the parties had been resolved. For example, in representation cases, 81% agreed that issues had been decided; only 55% agreed that the dispute had been resolved. In arbitration cases, 66% agreed that issues had been decided; only 44% agreed that the dispute had been resolved. For negotiability and ULP cases, 54% and 58%, respectively, agreed that their issues had been decided. The percentagesof respondents agreeing that the dispute had been resolved were 39% and 29%, respectively.
The parties gave positive responses to questions related to the dispute resolution efforts of the Office of General Counsel. More than 77% of the respondents who participated in an unfair labor practice case in 1996 and/or 1997 were involved in a case that was settled by a Regional Office. The majority of the settlements (53%) occurred during the investigation. Respondents stated the settlements met their interests (59%), provided a practical solution (63%), and a meaningful remedy (45%). Sixty-one percent (61%) of the respondents who answered these questions stated the Regional Office considered their interests and placed the appropriate amount of emphasis on resolving the dispute (51%). These results represent a marked improvement over the results for similar questions asked in the OGC's1993 survey.
The Survey also provides information on factors that affect the frequency of cases filed with the FLRA. Among those respondents reporting an increase in the number of charges filed in 1996 and 1997 compared with previous years, 65% agreed with the statement that "[ t]he personalities of the party representatives negatively affected the relationship." Those respondents who reported filing fewer charges in 1996 and 1997 indicated that they had received training on improving relationships or had used third party assistance in resolving disputes (54%). Fifty-seven percent (57%) agreed that they had placed greater emphasis on solving their own problems.
Given the importance of addressing the underlying problems provoking disputes between labor and management, and improving relationships and problem-solving skills, the FLRA has expanded its Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Program. The effectiveness of this program will be evaluated in future surveys. Additionally, collaboration and alternative dispute resolution plays a central role in the FLRA's revised ULP litigation regulations, ULP investigation regulations, and negotiability regulations. In Fiscal Year 1999 the FLRA's goal is to offer collaboration and alternative dispute resolution assistance at every stage of FLRA proceedings, in order to try to solve problems as early as possible, strengthen relationships, and decrease costly litigation.
The Survey has provided the FLRA with valuable information to validate, improve, and redirect our efforts so that we can meet the promise of our mission statement: to promote stable, constructive labor-relations that contribute to a more effective government.
Footnotes follow:
1. The third primary component of the FLRA, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, completed its first survey in September, 1995 and has continued to gather information from customers by holding round table discussions across the country and interacting with customers at widely attended events.
2. The Survey was the first one conducted by the Authority. The Office of the General Counsel had undertaken an earlier survey in 1993.
Go To: