I would generally agree that the next few years should provide tranquility, more tranquility because of the demands of the economy. But I wouldn't want to go so far as to say the decade. SUBMITTED QUESTIONS Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and Mr. Harris, sir. We have several other questions we would like to submit to you for your consideration and response. Thank you. [The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were submitted for response for the record:] Question: QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE LOCAL BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT To what extent has the Board's caseload been reduced by referring new grievances to local boards of adjustment for resolution? Answer: When Public Law 89-456 was approved on June 20, 1966, the National Railroad Adjustment Board had 6,245 cases pending. On December 31, 1981, the Four Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board had 2,307 cases pending. Question: How successful have local boards of adjustment been at settling disputes? Answer: Public Law Boards have been very successful. Since the passage of PL 89-456, approximately 70,000 cases have been decided. Question: Can greater use be made of local boards to achieve more budgetary savings? Answer: Perhaps. However, the selection as to whether the petitioner uses the National Railroad Adjustment Board or the Public Law Board is not determined by the Board. We have noted that several organizations which have not historically used the public law board tribunal have recently begun using it for discipline cases. SAFEGUARDING RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES Question: Has there been any instance where the National Mediation Board has refused to permit a union that is dissatisfied with its bargaining representative to decertify that representative in order to select one who would be responsive to union members' wishes and interests? Answer: The National Mediation Board will accept an application from any organization or individual to represent a craft or class of employees when employees desire to change from one representative to another. The application is made on the Board's standard application form, and must be accompanied by the required showing of interest. During FY 1977-80, the Board conducted 93 elections involving challenges to incumbents. Question: What grievance procedures are available to rail and air carrier employees who feel the Board has prevented decertification of a bargaining representative? Answer: The Railway Labor Act, unlike the National Labor Relations Act, contains no statutory procedure for decertification of a representative. Therefore, the Board does not conduct decertification elections. Question: What changes can you suggest to institutionalize procedural rights, instead of leaving them to the discretion of the Board? Answer: We do not believe any changes are needed. EMERGENCY BOARDS Question: How many emergency boards do you expect will have to be created in fiscal year 1983 in the railroad industry? Answer: We are estimating that three emergency boards will be created under section 10 of the Railway Labor Act and five boards will be created under the new section 9A. Question: In developing your budget request, how do you project the need for emergency boards? Answer: The Board is not in a position to predict with any great precision the number of emergency boards that may be created during a given fiscal year. In making our estimate we rely heavily on the state of the economy and the collective bargaining history of the major participants involved in negotiations for that year. Question: In recent years, how accurate has the Board been in estimating the need for emergency boards? Answer: In our appropriation request for FY 1981, we estimated that six emergency boards would be created during FY 1980 and five during FY 1981. In fact, two emergency boards were created in FY 1980 and none in FY 1981. It is important to note, however, that in years when we overestimate the need for emergency boards, it is our long-standing practice to return any unexpended funds from this activity to the U. S. Treasury. ADP Question: What progress has been made implementing automatic data processing operations? Answer: Development of the NMB computer is on-track. A case scheduling system for the Executive Secretary is operational for open representation cases with the entry of open mediation cases just beginning. A closed-case database for representation cases has been put into productive use by the Research Department. A litigation tracking system has also been put on-line for the General Counsel's office. Future projects include personnel, payroll, and travel expenses systems. Question: What budgetary savings will result from implementation of the Case Tracking System, which you indicated in last year's testimony was being developed? Answer: The Board's primary objective in developing and implementing the Case Tracking System (CTS) was to increase our ability to identify and retrieve information crucial to the decision-making process. This objective has been realized and, as a result, there has been a substantial increase in staff productivity. Research assignments that at one time required as much as a month of concentrated manual effort can be accomplished in a matter of minutes through the proper use of the computer system. As a significant by-product, the automated system has improved control over the security and integrity of the Board's resources. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROWLAND, CHAIRMAN ACCOMPANIED BY: PAUL A TENNEY, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE EARL R. OHMAN, JR., ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JAMES R. MEADOWS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LARRY A. HOSS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURE Senator INOUYE. Our next witness is the Chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Mr. Robert Rowland. Welcome. We have received your statement and, without objection, that statement will be made part of the record. Do you wish to introduce your staff before proceeding? [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROWLAND Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present for your consideration the fiscal year 1983 appropriation request in the amount of $6,316,000, for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This request represents a decrease of $776,000 and a reduction of five positions from the resource levels approved by the Congress for fiscal year 1982. The details of the changes in funding requirements are provided in the submission before you. However, I would like to highlight the significant facts of our submission. The workload of the Commission saw a significant decrease in fiscal year 1981 from fiscal year 1980. In fiscal year 1981, the Commission received 3,739 new cases, which was a decrease of 4,224 cases, or 53 percent from the fiscal year 1980 volume of 7,963 cases. Current expectations are that the Commission will receive an estimated 3,640 new cases in fiscal year 1982 and 3,515 new cases in fiscal year 1983. The case disposition rate of the Commission's administrative law judges increased from a productivity average of 120 cases per administrative law judge in fiscal year 1980 to an average of 130 cases per administrative law judge in fiscal year 1981, which is a 9-percent increase in productivity. The backlog of cases before the Commission's administrative law judges and the Commission members continues to decrease. The backlog of cases before the administrative law judges was 2,361 cases at the beginning of fiscal year 1981 and 1,094 at the end of fiscal year 1981. The backlog of cases before the Commission members was 342 cases at the beginning of fiscal year 1981 and 264 cases at the end of fiscal year 1981. We shall continue our efforts to reduce this backlog as expediently as possible. However, as I have indicated in our submission, the complexity and difficulty of cases on review can be expected to increase during fiscal year 1983. The significant decline in the caseload before the Commission is attributed primarily to the change in the post-citation policy by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor, in October 1980. As a result of this caseload decline, it was determined that resources of the Commission were in excess of those required to fulfill the Commission's functions and it was necessary to initiate a reduction-in-force action during the second quarter of fiscal year 1982, which affected 31 full-time permanent positions, or approximatley 20 percent of the Commission's staff |