Peter C. Schaumber

Chairman

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent Federal agency created by Congress in 1935 to administer and enforce the National Labor Relations Act, the primary Federal statute governing labor relations in the private sector. The NLRB has an unusual structure among executive branch agencies. Agency leadership culminates in six presidential appointees—five Board Members (including the Chairman) and the General Counsel. The Chairman is the head of the Agency. Day-to-day management of the Agency is divided by law, delegation, and Agency practice between the Chairman, the five-member Board and the General Counsel.

As Chairman, it is my privilege to present the NLRB’s Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. Contained in this document are the NLRB’s audited financial statements and performance information related to the goals in the Agency’s Strategic Plan.

The two strategic goals established by the Agency to achieve its mission of administering and enforcing the Act are as follows:

(1) to impartially and promptly resolve questions concerning representation by conducting secret ballot elections among employees to determine whether or not the employees wish to be represented by a union; and

(2) to impartially and promptly investigate, prosecute, prevent and remedy statutorily defined unfair labor practices by employers and unions.

In pursuing our goals the NLRB maintains a citizen-centered and results-oriented approach, striving to serve the public by making timely and well-reasoned decisions at each level of the organization. In the last quarter of FY 2007, to support our mission and the Agency’s strategic goals, the Agency adopted three performance measures to assess the overall time to process cases to completion. Each of these measures has interim yearly goals through 2012 to assess the overall time to process cases.

I am proud to report that in FY 2008 the Agency met all of its interim goals for the three overarching measures. I am especially pleased with the progress we have made in abbreviating the time it takes to fully process representation cases. In FY 2008, the Agency resolved 83.5 percent of representation cases within 100 days of the filing of an election petition, exceeding our goal of 80 percent. The expeditious resolution of unfair labor practice (ULP) charges is the Agency’s other priority. In FY 2008, the Agency met its goals by resolving 68 percent of ULP charges by withdrawal, dismissal, or closing upon compliance within 120 days of the filing of a charge and closing 76 percent of meritorious charges on compliance within 365 days of the filing of the ULP charge. With regard to each of these performance measures, the Agency’s performance improved over the year before.

There are those who have expressed a view that the Board’s representation processes take too long. Our performance in FY 2008, as in prior years, demonstrates that those concerns are not warranted. NLRB elections are held expeditiously. Indeed, our latest statistics show that initial elections are held within a median of 38 days, one day less than the 39 median days achieved in FY 2007, and 95.1 percent of all initial elections are conducted within 56 days of the filing of the petition, compared to 93.9 percent in FY 2007.

I am also pleased to report the Board’s case production during FY 2008. The Board issued 328 decisions in contested cases during the fiscal year. Of this total, 241 were unfair labor practice cases, and 87 were representation cases. At full strength, the Board consists of five Members. Since January 1, 2008, the Board has had two Members. The two-member quorum, comprised of my worthy colleague Member Wilma B. Liebman and myself, issued 255 decisions in contested cases, nearly 78 percent of the total for the fiscal year. Although the total number of decisions issued falls short of historic production levels for a fully constituted Board, that number is significant given that Member Liebman and I both had to participate in every decided case, rather than the normal practice of spreading the workload across multiple three-member panels.

Regrettably, because we can only decide those cases on which we both agree, approximately 20-25 percent of our cases are being set aside for consideration at a future date. That group of cases includes a number of novel and contentious issues. Notwithstanding those limitations, we have continued to perform as we believe Congress intended, minimizing potential delays in the final adjudication of cases while at the same time reducing our case inventory. At the end of FY 2007, our backlog stood at 207 cases. The backlog at the end of FY 2008 was 171 cases, a drop of 17.4 percent.

There is no better gauge of how faithfully the Board is following its statutory mandate and deciding cases based on precedent and the evidentiary record before it than how reviewing courts have treated the Board’s decisions on appeal. Over the past several years the Agency’s enforcement rate before the Federal circuit courts has been among the highest in its history. This trend continued in FY 2008, when the Board’s decisions and orders were enforced by the Courts in full 80.6 percent of the time, and in full or in part 88.9 percent of the time.

In FY 2008, the Board implemented several important programs, including a pilot project for the electronic issuance and service of final decisions of the Board and its Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The E-Issuance/E-Service project has been a great success and well received by the parties that volunteered to participate. Under the old practice, decisions generally were issued at the close of the business day and copies were formally served on the parties, usually by U.S. mail. Decisions were then released to the public and posted on the NLRB Web site (nlrb.gov) on the third business day following issuance. Under that pilot project, final Board and ALJ decisions are served immediately by e-mail on the parties at the close of business on the date of issuance and the decision is publicly made available on the Agency’s Web site the next day at 2 pm. Given the demonstrated success of this project, it is expected that E-Issuance/E-Service will be expanded to include most, if not all, agency documents. The project has improved our service to the public and reduced costs.

As Chairman of the NLRB, I certify that the NLRB’s management controls and financial systems meet and conform with the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. (A more detailed discussion of the Agency’s internal controls can be found starting on page 23 of this report.) I have also made every effort to verify the accuracy and completeness of the financial and performance data presented in this report. While I note that the Agency’s Inspector General recently reported shortcomings with respect to financial controls in the Procurement and Facilities Branch of the Division of Administration, the Agency is currently working to correct those deficiencies and to implement internal controls and reporting structures necessary to protect the Agency’s resources.

I have served on the Board since 2002, and have had the privilege of serving as Chairman since March 2008. My tenure has been a rewarding experience both personally and professionally. I have worked with a talented group of employees who are dedicated to ensuring that our statute is enforced in a fair and impartial manner. The Agency’s accomplishment of meeting its FY 2008 performance goals is a testament to their hard work, talent, and dedication. I am proud to have the opportunity to lead this great organization.

Peter C. Schaumber

Chairman

BOARD MEMBERS

Peter C. Schaumber Wilma B. Liebman

Chairman Board Member

MESSAGE FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Ronald Meisburg

General Counsel

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of the unfair labor practice cases filed in the NLRB’s Regional, Subregional, and Resident Offices. As the General Counsel of the NLRB, I exercise general supervisory authority over this network of field offices. This network consists of 32 Regional Offices, 3 Subregional Offices, and 16 Resident Offices, and is staffed by approximately 1,200 employees.

In FY 2008, 22,501 unfair labor practice cases and 3,400 representation cases were filed in the Regional Offices. Upon investigation, it was determined that over 8,100 of the unfair labor practice charges were meritorious, which warranted the issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint. The Regional Offices settled more than 96 percent of these, thus providing speedy relief to the affected employees, unions, and employers without the delay and costs of litigation. In addition, the Regional Offices conducted over 2,000 initial representation elections over 95 percent of which were held within 56 days of the filing of the petition. But processing time and casehandling percentages are not our only focus. The Office of the General Counsel has an extensive Quality Review Program that assures those who seek our help receive the best service from their government.

During my tenure as General Counsel of the NLRB, I have implemented or expanded upon several initiatives designed to increase our effectiveness in serving our customers. Among these initiatives is an electronic filing program. Since 2002, the NLRB has been steadily expanding its electronic filing program to the public. It began when the Office of the General Counsel permitted charging parties to E-file extension-of-time requests in cases before the Office of Appeals. The Office of the General Counsel has now expanded the program allowing parties to use the Agency's Web site to E-file most casehandling documents with NLRB Regional, Subregional, and Resident Offices. In addition, the Office of Appeals will now accept the E-filing of appeals from a Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint and a Regional Director's compliance determination, including the actual appeal, supporting statements, supplemental statements, and responses to the appeal. Field offices have received over 4,000 electronic submissions though the Agency E-filing process and the Office of Appeals over 1,000 such submissions.

In FY 2007, the Agency implemented three new performance measures. These new measures were more outcome-based, better aligned with the mission of the NLRB, and more meaningful to the public we serve. While the Agency did not fully implement the measures until June 2007, as a whole, it came very close to meeting these new measures in 2007. However, knowing that FY 2008 would be the Agency's first realistic test of its performance under these overarching measures, in order to ensure that the Agency met its performance targets, I convened a committee of experienced Field and Headquarters managers to review casehandling experience with reference to the overarching measures and to recommend strategies for meeting the measures over the 5 years covered by the Agency's Strategic Plan (2007-2012). The committee did recommend and I immediately adopted a number of concrete steps to improve the Agency's ability to meet the overarching goals. I am happy to report that the Agency met its three performance measures in FY 2008.

On December 10, 2007, the Agency deployed a pilot version of NxGen, its enterprise-wide case management system, in Region 9 ( Cincinnati ), Region 10 ( Atlanta ), and Headquarters offices. The initial pilot tested the viability of the NxGen software for electronic storage and transmission of casehandling documents. Beginning in November 2008, plans call for extending the NxGen pilot to completely replace the legacy case tracking and reporting system formerly used by the Office of Appeals. Upon successful deployment of the Office of Appeals' portion of the system, the Agency will replace other legacy software until it has a completely integrated electronic case management system.

Another initiative I have continued to expand is the Outreach Program. Under this program, NLRB agents make contact with schools, community groups, churches, business organizations, and others to provide information about the NLRB, and the rights and obligations under the National Labor Relations Act applicable not only to employers and unions, but also to individual workers. Through this program, Agency representatives have now participated in over 500 outreach events. A significant number of these events had several hundred people in attendance such as the Government on Display at the Mall of America in Minneapolis , the Cincinnati Latino Festival, and a Webcast to all of Alcoa's U.S. facilities. Also, through the Speakers Bureau located on the NLRB's Web site, we have received 53 requests for speakers, including requests from government officials from Dubai and Shenzhen , China who were visiting the United States . In addition, the Agency has completed filming an English/Spanish video about NLRB representation case processing for nationwide distribution to the public. The video will also be posted on the NLRB's Web site.

The General Counsel of the NLRB, on delegation from the Board, exercises general supervision over the administrative functions of the Agency, including financial management. I am pleased that this year’s financial audit resulted in an unqualified opinion from our auditors, thereby vindicating the trust the public places in us as a guardian of its resources. Indeed, the auditor's letter states that they did not identify any material weaknesses in internal control mechanisms. Further, the auditors identified only two small contracts (valued at less than $112,000) that they believed to be invalid. In my view, both instances involved a mistaken interpretation of a Federal procurement regulation. Importantly, the auditors reported that, while their review is limited, with the exception of these two minor instances, their "tests of compliance with selected provisions of laws and regulations disclosed no other instances of non-compliance that would be reportable under U.S. generally accepted auditing standards or OMB audit guidance."

As the General Counsel of the NLRB, I am committed to informing the public of its workplace rights and protections under the National Labor Relations Act and ensuring its enforcement in a fair and impartial manner. This commitment is evidenced by the proper stewardship of resources, ensuring that Agency employees have the appropriate tools to enforce the Act, and the accountability mechanisms we maintain for the casehandling process.

Ronald Meisburg

General Counsel

AGENCY OVERVIEW

About the NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent Federal agency created by Congress in 1935 to administer and enforce the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), which is the primary Federal statute governing labor relations in the private sector.[1] The purpose of the law is to serve the public interest by reducing interruptions to commerce caused by conflict between employers and employees.

The Act embodies a bill of rights, which establishes freedom of association for purposes of collective bargaining. It defines and protects the rights of employees, unions, and employers, and seeks to eliminate certain unfair labor practices on the part of employers and unions so as to promote commerce and strengthen the Nation's economy. Under the Act, the NLRB has two primary functions:

1. to conduct secret-ballot elections among employees to determine whether or not the employees wish to be represented by a union; and

2. to prevent and remedy statutorily defined unfair labor practices by employers and unions.

The NLRB acts only on those cases brought before it, and does not initiate cases. All proceedings originate with the filing of charges or petitions by employees, labor unions, private employers, and other private parties.

Mission

The mission of the National Labor Relations Board is to carry out the statutory responsibilities of the National Labor Relations Act, as efficiently as possible, in a manner that gives full effect to the rights afforded to all parties under the Act.

Vision Statement

The NLRB strives to create a positive labor-management environment for the nation's employees, unions, and employers by assuring employees free choice on union representation and by preventing and remedying statutorily defined unfair labor practices. The NLRB maintains a citizen-centered and results-oriented philosophy to best serve the needs of the American people.

Statutory Structure of the NLRB

The Board has five Members and primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body in deciding cases on the basis of formal records in administrative proceedings. Board Members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and serve staggered 5-year terms. The President designates one of the Board Members as Chairman. From January 1, 2008, through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, there were three vacant seats on the Board.[2] As a result, during that period, and continuing through the present, the Board operated as a two-member quorum, comprised of Chairman Peter C. Schaumber and Member Wilma B. Liebman.

The General Counsel, currently Ronald Meisburg, is appointed by the President to a 4-year term, with Senate consent, and is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases and for the general supervision of the NLRB Regional Offices. Each Regional Office is headed by a Regional Director who is responsible for making an initial determination in cases within the geographical area served by that Regional Office.

The NLRB has an unusual structure among executive branch agencies. Agency leadership culminates in six presidential appointees—five Board Members (including the Chairman) and the General Counsel. The Chairman is the head of the Agency. Day-to-day management of the Agency is divided by law, delegation, and Agency practice between the Chairman, the five-member Board and the General Counsel. In performing delegated functions, and in some aspects statutorily assigned functions, the General Counsel acts on behalf of the Board. However, with respect to the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases, the General Counsel has sole prosecutorial authority under the statute, independent of the Chairman or the Board.

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS[3]

The NLRA contains a code of conduct for employers and unions and regulates that conduct in unfair labor practice proceedings. Unfair labor practices are remedied through adjudicatory procedures under the NLRA in which the Board and the General Counsel have independent functions.

Statutory Role

(cont'd.)

Congress created the position of General Counsel in its current form in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. At that time, it gave the General Counsel sole responsibility—independent of the Board—to investigate charges of unfair labor practices, and to decide whether to issue complaints with respect to such charges. The Board, in turn, acts independently of the General Counsel in deciding unfair labor practice (ULP) cases.

The General Counsel investigates ULP charges through the Agency’s network of Regional, Subregional, and Resident Offices (field offices). In FY 2008, 22,501 ULP charges were filed in the field offices. If there is reason to believe that a ULP charge has merit, the Regional Director, on behalf of the General Counsel, issues and prosecutes a complaint against the charged party unless a settlement is reached. With some exceptions, a complaint that is not settled or withdrawn is tried before an administrative law judge (ALJ), who issues a decision which may be appealed by any party to the Board through the filing of exceptions. The Board decides cases on the basis of the formal trial record according to the statute and the body of case law that has been developed by the Board and the Federal courts.

If the Board finds that a violation of the Act has been committed, the role of the General Counsel thereafter is to act on behalf of the Board to obtain compliance with the Board’s order remedying the violation. Although Board decisions and orders in ULP cases are final and binding with respect to the General Counsel, they are not self-enforcing. The statute provides that any party (other than the General Counsel) may seek review of the Board’s decision in a U.S. Court of Appeals. In addition, if a party refuses to comply with a Board decision, the Board itself must petition for court enforcement of its order. In court proceedings to review or enforce Board decisions, the General Counsel represents the Board and acts as its attorney. Also, the General Counsel acts as the Board’s attorney in contempt proceedings and when the Board seeks injunctive relief under Sections 10(e) and (f) of the NLRA after the entry of a Board order and pending enforcement or review of proceedings in circuit court.

Section 10(j) of the NLRA empowers the NLRB to petition a Federal district court for an injunction to temporarily prevent unfair labor practices by employers or unions and to restore the status quo, pending full review of the case by the Board. In enacting this provision, Congress was concerned that delays inherent in the administrative processing of ULP charges, in certain instances, would frustrate the Act’s remedial objectives. In determining whether the use of Section 10(j) is appropriate in a particular case, the principal question is whether injunctive relief is necessary to preserve the Board’s ability to effectively remedy the unfair labor practice alleged, and whether the alleged violator would otherwise reap the benefits of its violation.

Under NLRB procedures, after deciding to issue a ULP complaint, the General Counsel may request authorization from the Board to seek injunctive relief. The Board votes on the General Counsel’s request and, if a majority votes to authorize injunctive proceedings, the General Counsel, through his Regional staff, files for injunctive relief with an appropriate Federal district court.

In addition, Section 10(l) of the Act requires the Board to seek a temporary Federal court injunction against certain forms of union misconduct, principally involving work stoppages or picketing with an unlawful secondary objective.

SEEKING 10(j) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

In the case Majestic Towers d/b/a Wilshire Plaza Hotel, the General Counsel was authorized to seek 10(j) injunctive relief by the Board, as it was found that the employer had committed extensive violations of the NLRA, which undermined the incumbent Union during contract negotiations, including implementing a number of unilateral changes and subsequently implementing an unlawful final contract offer which contained a severe reduction in benefits.

On February 28, 2008 the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the injunction in full. The Court ordered that the employer take the following affirmative action: upon request of the Union, rescind unilateral changes and restore former terms and conditions of employment and benefits of employees until the parties had bargained in good faith to an agreement or a lawful impasse; meet and bargain in good faith with the Union; provide the Union with requested relevant information; timely submit to the Union all monthly union dues deducted from employees' paychecks; resume making monthly payments and reports to the Trust Funds; restore Union access to the employees at the Hotel; process grievances; pay employees' vacation pay; offer an employee employment on his prior shift; and remove from its files photos or videos of employees speaking with Union representatives or engaging in protected concerted activity.

The Board issued its decision and order on September 30, 2008 (353 NLRB No. 29), affirming the ALJ’s finding that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally implementing portions of its final contract offer. In the months preceding the Board’s decision, because the General Counsel secured 10(j) injunctive relief, the employees of the Wilshire Plaza Hotel were able to continue to work under the same terms and conditions of employment that had previously been agreed upon until such time as the employer and the Union can conclude contract negotiations.

REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS[4]

Statutory

Role (cont'd.)

In contrast to ULP proceedings, representation proceedings conducted pursuant to the Act are not adversarial. Representation cases are initiated by the filing of a petition—by an employee, a group of employees, an individual or a labor organization acting on their behalf, or in some cases by an employer. The petitioner requests an election to determine whether a union represents a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit and therefore should be certified as the employees’ bargaining representative. The role of the Agency in such cases is to investigate the petition and, if necessary, to conduct a hearing to determine whether employees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under the Act. The NLRB must also determine which employees are properly included in the bargaining unit and therefore eligible to vote, conduct the election if an election is determined to be warranted, hear and decide any post-election objections to the conduct of the election, and, if the election is determined to have been fairly conducted, to certify its results.

In the processing of representation cases, the Board and the General Counsel have shared responsibilities. The Regional Offices, which are under the day-to-day supervision of the General Counsel, process representation petitions and conduct elections on behalf of the Board based on a delegation of authority made in 1961. As a result, the General Counsel and the Board have historically worked together in developing procedures for the conduct of representation proceedings. The Board has ultimate authority to determine such matters as the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and to rule on any objections to the conduct of an election. The Regional Directors have been delegated authority to render initial decisions in representation matters, which are subject to Board review.

COMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS

Statutory

Role (cont'd.)

In order to obtain compliance with the Board’s Orders and settlement agreements, the General Counsel’s staff must follow up to ensure that the results of the processes discussed above are enforced. Staff must be prepared to work with employees whose rights have been violated to calculate backpay, work with respondents when terminated employees are entitled to reinstatement or having their records expunged in unlawful disciplinary actions, or monitor the bargaining process when the Board has ordered the parties to bargain. Noncompliance or disputes on findings may require additional hearings or actions by the judicial system.

ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS

Section 3(d) of the Act assigns to the General Counsel general supervision over all attorneys employed by the Agency, with the exception of the ALJs, who are under the general supervision of the Board, and the attorneys who serve as counsel to the Board Members. The Board has also delegated to the General Counsel general supervision over the administrative functions of the Agency and over the officers and employees in the Regional Offices.

STRATEGIC GOALS

The Board and the General Counsel share a common goal of ensuring that the Act is fully and fairly enforced. While they have separate statutory functions, the Board and the General Counsel work together in developing one comprehensive Strategic Plan and annual Performance Plan.

As set forth more fully in the following section, the goals of the NLRB as outlined in the Strategic Plan represent the core functions of the Agency in enforcing the NLRA. These strategic goals translate the Agency’s mission into major policy directions and are focused on the unique characteristics of the organization.

Strategic Goal #1

Resolve all questions concerning representation impartially and promptly.

Strategic

Goals

(cont'd.)

Performance Measure #1

The percentage of representation cases resolved within 100 days of filing of the election petition.

Strategic Goal #2

Investigate, prosecute, and remedy cases of unfair labor practices by employers or unions, or both, impartially and promptly.

Performance Measure #2

The percentage of ULP charges resolved by withdrawal, by dismissal, or by closing upon compliance with a settlement or Board order or Court judgment within 120 days of the filing of the charge.

Performance Measure #3

The percentage of meritorious (prosecutable) ULP cases closed on compliance within 365 days of the filing of the ULP charge.

PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

The NLRB updated its Strategic Plan last year, introducing three new performance measures that are more outcome-based, better aligned with the mission of the NLRB, and more meaningful to the public we serve. The change moved the Agency’s performance measurement approach from one of emphasis on individual segments of the casehandling process to one that focused on the time taken to process an entire case, from start to finish. While the performance measures were not fully introduced until June 2007, in that year the NLRB met, and/or exceeded, the targets set for all but one of the new performance measures. However, FY 2008 was the first realistic test of the Agency's performance with respect to these three new measures as they reflected the Agency's performance for the entire year.

The new measures advance the NLRB’s long and successful history of performance measurement, which previously focused on the timeliness and effectiveness of the individual stages of the casehandling pipeline. ”Measure #1 assesses the NLRB’s effectiveness in achieving the first of its two Strategic Goals — to resolve all questions concerning representation impartially and promptly. Measures #2 and #3 assess the NLRB’s effectiveness in achieving its second Strategic Goal — investigating, prosecuting, and remedying cases of unfair labor practices by both employers and unions, or both, impartially and promptly.

We are pleased to report that we exceeded all interim goals for our three performance measures in FY 2008:

Measure #1. By 2012, resolve questions concerning representation in at least 85 percent of all representation cases within 100 days from the filing of the representation case petition.

Year	Interim Goal	Actual Performance
FY 2007	79.0%	79.0%t
FY 2008	80.0%	83.5%

Measure #2: By 2012, resolve at least 71 percent of all charges of unfair labor practice cases by withdrawal, by dismissal or by closing upon compliance with a settlement or Board order or Court judgment within 120 days of the filing of the charge.

Year	Interim Goal	Actual Performance
FY 2007	67.5%	66.0%
FY 2008	68.0%	68.0%

Performance Highlights

(cont'd.)

Measure #3: By 2012, close 77 percent of meritorious (prosecutable) unfair labor practices on compliance within 365 days of the filing of the unfair labor practice charge.

Year	Interim Goal	Actual Performance
FY 2007	74.0%	73.5%
FY 2008	75.0%	76.0%

The two goals of the NLRB’s Strategic Plan represent the core functions of the Agency in enforcing the NLRA. They thus reflect both the short– and long-term goals of the Agency. These strategic goals translate the Agency’s mission into major policy directions and are focused on the unique characteristics of the organization.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The NLRB’s financial statements summarize the financial activity and financial position of the Agency. The financial statements, footnotes, and the balance of the required supplementary information appear in the Financial Section of this Performance and Accountability Report (PAR).

(1) Balance Sheet—The NLRB assets were approximately $38 million as of September 30, 2008. The Fund Balance with Treasury, which was $25 million, represents the NLRB’s largest asset. The Fund Balance consists of unspent appropriated and unappropriated funds from the past six fiscal years and includes backpay settlement funds. The NLRB has one unusual account, Backpay Settlements Due to Others. These are backpay funds that are owed to discriminatees by employers due to the filing of ULP charges with the NLRB. The source of these funds is either the original employer or a bankruptcy court disposition. During the time it takes the Agency to locate discriminatees, these funds are sometimes invested in U.S. Treasury market-based securities.

(2) Statement of Net Cost—The NLRB’s appropriation is used to resolve Representation Cases or ULP Charges filed by employees, employers, unions, and union members. Of the $261 million net cost of operations in FY 2008, 16 percent was used to resolve representation cases and 84 percent was used to resolve ULP charges.

(3) Statement of Changes in Net Position—The Statement of Changes in Net Position reports the change in net position during the reporting period. Net position is affected by changes in its two components: Cumulative Results of Operations and Unexpended Appropriations. From FY 2007 to FY 2008, there was a change in net position of $3,592,227.

(4)

Financial Highlights

(cont'd.)

Statement of Budgetary Resources—The Statement of Budgetary Resources shows budgetary resources available and the status at the end of the period. It represents the relationship between budget authority and budget outlays, and reconciles obligations to total outlays. For FY 2008, the NLRB had available budgetary resources of $256 million, the majority of which were derived from new budget authority. This represents a $1 million decrease from FY 2007, when available budgetary resources were $257 million. In both FY 2007 and FY 2008 the status of budgetary resources shows obligations of almost $252 million, or about 98 percent of funds available in each year. Total outlays for FY 2008 were $250 million which is a $3 million decrease from FY 2007.

Of the budget appropriation received by the NLRB, approximately 90 percent of the payments are for employees’ salaries and benefits, space rent, and building security. The remaining 10 percent is utilized for expenses integral to the Agency’s casehandling mission, such as casehandling travel; transcripts in cases requiring a hearing; interpreter services, reflective of a growing community of non-English-speaking workers; witness fees; and information technology.

LIMITATIONS OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The principal financial statements of the NLRB have been prepared to report the financial position and results of operations of the Agency, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515(b). While the statements have been prepared from the books and records of the entity in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for Federal entities and the formats prescribed by OMB, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources which are prepared from the same books and records.

The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the U.S. Government, a sovereign entity.

FINANCIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE

The NLRB has a long-established Financial Planning Committee (FPC) which has been meeting annually since 1992 to review and update the NLRB’s 5-year Financial Management Plan. The committee met in early FY 2008 to assess the Agency’s performance under the FY 2007 goals and review and approve the goals for FY 2008. The committee, after reviewing the goals, and the tasks and milestones associated with each goal, determined that the NLRB’s 5-year financial management goals should include:

1. Improved financial accountability;

2. Improved financial systems;

3. Development of financial management human resources;

4. Improved administration of the credit card program; and

5. Use of electronic commerce to improve financial management.

Financial Highlights

(cont'd.)

FPC HIGHLIGHTS

The NLRB has now fully implemented the eTravel System. This GSA-mandated system is used to process travel authorizations and travel vouchers. Users of the system can make reservations online, prepare a travel order and, finally, the travel voucher once the travel is completed. The voucher is then transmitted electronically to the Finance Branch for payment. The system was originally scheduled for full implementation in FY 2005, but various problems encountered government-wide delayed start of implementation until 2007. The NLRB's field offices began using the system in August 2007 and the Headquarters offices in September 2007.

In the area of electronic commerce, the NLRB continued to make use of several Treasury Department systems to facilitate electronic payments and deposits. The Secure Payment System allows the NLRB to make payments to Treasury over the Internet using a secure ID and certification, and the Plastic Card Network permits outside parties to make payments to the NLRB using a credit card rather than issuing a check. At the NLRB, it is mainly used for payment of fees associated with requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Paper Check Conversion System eliminates the need for personnel to physically go to the bank to make a deposit. Deposits are made electronically, in-house.

To further the goal of improving administration of the Credit Card Program, the Agency issued updated administrative policy guidance with respect to the Travel Card Program. The policy contained a section on the proper use of the travel card and, per direction from the Office of Management and Budget, included guidance regarding the appropriate use of first class and business class travel.

In FY 2008, the General Services Administration's contract for the Travel and Purchase Card Programs expired, requiring the Agency to choose a new provider for these services. As it had in the past, the NLRB chose to be part of a larger agency's contract rather than negotiate on its own. Citibank will continue as the Agency's provider of its Travel and Purchase Card Programs.

October 31, 2008

STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

The NLRB’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control and financial management systems that meet the objectives of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). The NLRB conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control. Based on the results of this evaluation, the NLRB can provide reasonable assurance that its internal control over the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations as of September 30, 2008 was operating effectively and no material weaknesses were found in the design or implementation of internal controls.

Peter C. Schaumber

Chairman

Ronald Meisburg

General Counsel

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

As evidenced in the NLRB’s goals and measures, the Agency places the highest priority on issues relating to the quality and timeliness of casehandling. While the NLRB’s casehandling procedures have been well established for many years, the Agency has developed several initiatives aimed at further increasing its effectiveness in these areas. Several of these initiatives are described below.

FIRST CONTRACT BARGAINING

A critical responsibility of the NLRB is to conduct prompt and fair representational elections to resolve questions concerning representation or determining whether employees will be represented by a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining. The General Counsel has highlighted the ancillary responsibility of the Agency to consider promptly and fairly ULP charges alleging that, following the certification of a labor organization as the bargaining representative of a group of employees, an employer or union has failed or refused to bargain in good faith.

First contract bargaining is the fruition of the free choice that employees have made to embrace collective bargaining. That free choice must be vindicated by protecting the collective bargaining process chosen by employees. Initial contract bargaining constitutes a critical stage of the negotiation process because it forms the foundation for the parties’ future labor-management relationship and, when employees are bargaining for their first collective bargaining agreement, they are highly susceptible to unfair labor practices intended to undermine support for their freely chosen bargaining representative.

In order to ensure that bargaining rights secured by the free choice of employees through NLRB elections are meaningful, the General Counsel has required that the investigation of ULP charges dealing with first contract bargaining are accorded high priority in the Regional Offices. He also has required the consideration of additional appropriate remedies if those charges are found to have merit. The appropriateness of these remedies is considered based upon the facts of each case.

As a result of this initiative, nearly 200 first contract cases were reviewed to determine whether additional remedies or injunctive relief was warranted. In selected meritorious cases, the General Counsel authorized settlements or litigation to extend the certification year for certified bargaining representatives and required parties to adhere to bargaining schedules in cases involving refusals to meet at reasonable times. In other cases, Regional Offices obtained settlements requiring multi-facility notice postings, the e-mail distribution of notices, union access to bulletin boards, the payment of negotiation expenses, and bargaining reports.

OUTREACH PROGRAM

Strategic

Initiatives

(cont'd.)

The purpose of the Act and the role of the NLRB in enforcing it, insofar as it relates to the right of employees to select or reject a collective-bargaining representative, are relatively well known. For 73 years, the NLRB has been actively and publicly involved in the protection of employee rights to self-organization, the conduct of secret ballot representation elections, and the enforcement of employer and union obligations to engage in good faith bargaining. This is the role of the NLRB that is most often the subject of accounts in the press. It is also the role that is featured in communications to employees by unions and employers during organizing campaigns.

A less well known protection under the Act affords employees “the right to engage in other concerted activity.” This activity, which can be initiated with or without the presence or involvement of a union, is conducted by or on behalf of two or more employees for “mutual aid or protection,” as described in Section 7 of the Act. Under the Act, an employer cannot lawfully discipline employees for raising such demands or complaints. As with union activity, employees not only have the right to engage in such activity, but they also have the right to refrain from engaging in any or all of this activity without fear of retribution.

In an effort to inform the public fully about all their rights under the NLRA, including their rights with regard to protected concerted activity, the General Counsel initiated an expansion of the Agency’s traditional outreach program in 2006. Under the expanded outreach program, independently or in partnership with other organizations such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, NLRB agents are initiating contact with schools, community groups, churches, other Federal agencies, business organizations, and others to make information about the NLRB available to individual workers. The Regional Offices, taking advantage of local opportunities and addressing local conditions, are reaching out to employers, unions, workers, and soon-to-be workers to educate them regarding the role of the NLRB as an impartial enforcement agency.

Strategic

Initiatives

(cont'd.)

Agency representatives have now participated in over 500 outreach events. A significant number of these events had several hundred people in attendance such as the Government on Display at the Mall of America in Minneapolis , the Cincinnati Latino Festival, and a Webcast to all of Alcoa's U.S. facilities. In addition, many Regional Offices have published newsletters to their local communities.

The Agency has also completed filming an English/Spanish video about NLRB representation case processing for nationwide distribution to the public. The video will be posted on the NLRB's Web site.

In addition to both the traditional and expanded outreach program, one of the critical services the Agency has long provided to employers, unions, and employees is the Agency’s Public Information Program. Under this program, the Agency provides information about the Agency directly to individuals or entities that contact the Agency seeking assistance. In FY 2008, the Agency’s 51 field offices received 154,028 public inquiries regarding workplace issues. In responding to these inquiries, Board agents, acting as “Information Officers,” spent considerable time explaining the coverage of the NLRA, accepting charges, or referring parties to other Federal or state agencies.

Two other initiatives have also enhanced our public service outreach efforts. The public has easy and cost-free access to the Agency through a toll-free telephone number. Callers to the toll-free number may listen to messages recorded in English and Spanish that provide a general description of the Agency’s mission and connections to other government agencies or to Information Officers located in the Agency’s Regional Offices. In FY 2008, the toll-free telephone service received 53,077 calls.

Further, to extend its public services efforts across the Internet, the Agency’s Web site (www.nlrb.gov) contains a public information “Questions” page which is designed to provide answers to frequently asked questions involving the NLRA and NLRB procedures. During FY 2008, visitors to this site area had 50,175 sessions.

A feature of the NLRB’s Web site is a Speakers Bureau which permits individuals and groups to request that a NLRB representative address gatherings to present information about the Agency. Our agents respond to these requests and speakers are assigned, as appropriate. The Agency has received 53 requests for speakers through this feature, including officials from Dubai and Shenzhen , China visiting the United States .

Strategic

Initiatives

(cont'd.)

In addition, the public can easily access information about pending cases through the Agency's Electronic Case Information System (ECIS).

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PILOT PROGRAM

In December 2005, the five-member Board implemented a pilot “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) program to assist parties in settling ULP cases pending before the Board on exceptions to decisions issued by the Agency’s administrative law judges (ALJ). (This program is in addition to the Settlement Program conducted by the General Counsel.) The program is currently being evaluated for permanent retention.

The Board established the pilot ADR program in response to the success experienced by other Federal agencies and the Federal courts in settling contested cases through ADR, as well as the success of the NLRB’s own settlement judge program at the trial level. A successful ADR intervention in a case pending before the Board on exceptions to an ALJ's decision would resolve the contested matter and allow the Board to cease its deliberations on the case and the Board Members and their staffs to turn their attention to other matters. In addition, as approximately 40 percent of Board decisions generated court of appeals litigation, resolution of the matter through ADR obviates the need for such additional litigation and the commitment of Agency resources to its prosecution. Finally, disputes over the details of compliance often generate additional investigation and litigation following the merits litigation before the Board and courts. Resolution of the matter through the ADR process invariably include the settlement of those compliance details as well, such as reinstatement and backpay, making further proceedings before the Agency unnecessary.

DELEGATES FROM 14 NATIONS VISIT THE NLRB

Visitors from Bangladesh, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Sri Lanka visited with NLRB officials as part of a program sponsored by the State Department's Office of International Visitors. This program introduces participants to the political, economic, and social importance of the American labor movement and to the institutional ties between American unions and counterpart organizations in the delegates' home countries.

Participation in the program was voluntary, and a party who entered into settlement discussions under the program could withdraw its participation at any time. The Board provided the parties with an experienced neutral, usually an NLRB ALJ, to facilitate confidential settlement discussions and explore resolution options that served the parties’ interests. The Board stayed further processing of the ULP case for 60 days from the first meeting with the neutral or until the parties reached a settlement, whichever occurred first. Extensions of the stay beyond the 60 days could be granted by the neutral, but only with the agreement of all parties.

During the pilot program, 41 cases were set for mediation, of which 19 cases did not settle, and were returned to the Board for further processing. During this time, the total number of cases pending before the Board averaged about 285 per month.

VIDEO TESTIMONY PILOT PROGRAM

In January 2008, the General Counsel, with the authorization of the Board, created a Pilot Video Testimony Program to allow the participation in representation case hearings of parties, representatives, or witnesses from remote locations. The 2-year program was established to monitor the use of video testimony and assess its effectiveness in situations where a party, a witness, or representative is unable to appear at a hearing in-person. The pilot program is limited to representation cases.

While in-person testimony and the presence of all parties at a representation hearing is still the preference, where circumstances demonstrate a benefit from the use of videoconferencing equipment, Regional Directors now have the authority to require its use during both pre-election and post-election representation case hearings. In exercising this discretion, the Regional Directors will consider various factors, including the number, length, and types of documents (e.g. affidavits) to be introduced through a witness providing testimony via video; the number of witnesses who would testify by video and the expected length of their testimony; the types of issues involved in the proceeding; the potential costs of using video testimony versus travel costs; and the positions of the parties.

Other Federal agencies have used video testimony with great success and it is hoped that this pilot program will save time and money while facilitating the development of complete records during representation case hearings

DEFERRAL OF "BLOCKING" CHARGES

Strategic

Initiatives

(cont'd.)

The pendency of a representation petition and ULP charges in a unit covered by a collective bargaining agreement with a grievance-arbitration procedure implicates several significant policy interests under the NLRA. The Board has two well-established policies – resolving questions concerning representation expeditiously, and allowing employers and unions to resolve disputes through existing grievance-arbitration procedures. Over the past several years, there have been a limited number of representation cases that have been "blocked" while the blocking ULP charges were deferred in accordance with the Board's decisions in Collyer Insulated Wire and Dubo Manufacturing Corp.

In September 2008, the General Counsel announced a program to speed the processing of ULP charges that "block" the processing of representation cases. This program provides for uniform case processing procedures which balance those two well-established policies of expeditiously resolving representation questions and resolving disputes through existing grievance-arbitration procedures. Rather than indefinitely deferring ULP charges which may interfere with the outcome of employee voting, Regional Offices will now fully investigate the allegations and provide the parties with a preliminary determination regarding the merits of those charges. The parties will then be afforded an opportunity to resolve and remedy the meritorious allegations – either through private negotiations or through an NLRB settlement – thereby quickly restoring the conditions of a free and fair election.

CROWN CORK & SEAL – USING THE BOARD'S ADR PROCESS

Region 10 ( Atlanta ) Settlement Team: (Pictured Left to Right): Field Attorney Ellen Hampton, Compliance Assistant Shawn Watkins-Carroll, Field Attorney Kerstin Meyers, and Supervisory Field Examiner Diane Williams.

This was a noteworthy case for the Board, not only because it involved multi-state plant closings and unusual procedural issues, but also because the settlement came about through the Board's ADR mediation process.

In 2003, Crown Cork & Seal, a manufacturer of food and beverage containers, was found by an NLRB ALJ to have unlawfully closed plants in Atlanta and Cincinnati; lied in negotiations to force its Baltimore plant out of the United Steel Workers' of America's (USWA) Master Agreement and into a concessionary contract; and terminated Orlando, Florida employees – subsequently refusing to employ them at a plant in Winter Garden, Florida – while at the same time bargaining in bad faith and refusing to extend recognition to the USWA at Winter Garden. Parties filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision and the case remained before the Board, with little movement toward settlement, until early 2006 when mediation began through the Board's ADR Program.

While initial settlement offers were unsuccessful, staff from the Board, the Office of the General Counsel, and the NLRB's Regional Offices in Tampa and Atlanta continued in their efforts and, only weeks before the anticipated issuance of the Board decision, Crown Cork & Seal agreed to a backpay settlement for the employees in Atlanta , Cincinnati , and Orlando . Once that agreement was in place, issues involving the Maryland plant were quickly resolved. The settlement amounted to $6.3 million in backpay and benefits and required Crown Cork & Seal to post Notices to Employees and to execute a collective bargaining agreement at its plant in Baltimore , MD.

While two teams of employees from two different NLRB Regional Offices worked to settle this case, these teams noted that it was the effort of the Board's ADR Program that resulted in success where all other efforts to settle had failed.

Region 12 ( Tampa ) Settlement Team (Seated left to right): Co-op Latoria Grinder and Language Assistant Chastity Pabon; (Standing from left to right): Supervisory Field Examiner Karen Marksteiner, Regional Director Rochelle Kentov, and Regional Attorney Margaret Diaz.

PRESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

The NLRB's integration of the President’s management initiatives into its programs has greatly aided the Agency in meeting its performance goals.

WORKFORCE PLANNING

The NLRB has a long tradition of operating effectively through efficient management of its human resources. The need to make the most judicious use of existing human resources and to attract qualified staff is critical to the Agency, as by the end of FY 2008, 40 percent of GS 13-15 supervisors and 75 percent of Senior Executive Service members in the Agency were eligible to retire.

The NLRB workforce is spread throughout the country, with 450 employees located in the Washington , D.C. Headquarters, and 1,206 remaining staff located in 32 Regional Offices, 3 Subregional Offices, 16 Resident Offices, and 3 satellite Judges Offices nationwide. Through its Regional Office field structure, the Agency provides the public with easy access to and direct contact with casehandlers and decision makers.

The ability of the Agency to continue to achieve its mission and meet performance goals in such a dynamic environment was facilitated by an Agencywide workforce assessment that was completed in FY 2004. The assessment resulted in a 5-year plan, the objective of which, in keeping with the President’s Management Agenda (PMA), is to use workforce planning and restructuring to make the NLRB more citizen-centered and ensure that the Agency has the diverse workforce – the right people, with the right skills, in the right places – to effectively accomplish its mission.

COMPETITIVE SOURCING

Presidential Initiatives

(cont'd.)

Further, in accordance with the PMA, the Agency has fully utilized competitive sourcing and direct conversion outsourcing opportunities. Managers have reviewed public and private competitions of commercial activities to enhance cost efficiencies and program performance. In keeping with this effort, the Division of Administration’s Finance Branch began outsourcing invoice payment to the Department of the Interior’s National Business Center , the provider of the Agency’s accounting, personnel, and payroll systems, in September 2007. The Division had previously outsourced mailroom operations in FY 2004. Other opportunities for outsourcing continue to be explored within the Agency.

BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE

The NLRB’s annual Performance Plan is integrated into its budget request to form the basis of our Performance Budget. As mentioned previously, the Agency updated its Strategic Plan in FY 2007. As part of this process, the Agency replaced the previous measures, which focused on case processing within the Board and General Counsel’s offices, with three new, overarching, outcome-based performance measures that focus on the time taken to resolve cases, from beginning to end, including both the Board and General Counsel sides.

The NLRB strengthens budget and performance linkages by establishing a direct, vertical relationship between the performance plans of individual executives in its Regional and Headquarters offices and the performance goals for their programs, which are derived from the Agency’s broader strategic goals. Agency goals are implemented on a daily basis through the actions of individual managers leading programs and activities throughout the Agency.

IMPROVED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

The Agency’s accounting system is the Department of Interior’s National Business Center ’s Momentum System, which carries an annual cost of over $1 million. The Agency upgraded to this system in 2004, as it provided better Web-based functionality and improved integration with other systems.

Momentum is integrated with the Federal Personnel and Payroll System, providing for more efficient payroll processing and also with the Agency’s E-travel compliant travel manager system, E²Solutions, which was implemented in August 2007. Additionally, as mentioned previously, to increase efficiencies the Agency outsourced the invoice payment function, beginning in September 2007.

TECHNOLOGY AND E-GOV ADVANCES

Presidential Initiatives

(cont'd.)

To support its mission and goals, the NLRB has committed itself to the development of a mainstream information architecture and infrastructure that utilizes the latest technological advances. The Agency’s information technology initiatives support its broader efforts to improve productivity and provide greater transparency. These initiatives, consistent with the Expanding Electronic Government element of the PMA, focus on citizen-centered and results-oriented principles.

Over the last 5 years, the Agency has launched major information technology initiatives that are part of its implementation of the President’s Management Agenda. These initiatives fall under three major categories: (1) Next Generation Case Management (NxGen); (2) Improved Web site with Citizen-centered Portal; and (3) Infrastructure Modernization and Consolidation.

These initiatives are designed to:

Improve the productivity of the Agency's case management process.

Transform the way the NLRB does business with the public by making its case processes more transparent, and providing more information to customers in a timely matter.

Standardize the Agency’s electronic case management systems on an enterprise-wide platform.

Optimize internal NLRB case processing by providing employees with easy access to the tools, data, and documents they require by using Web-based technologies.

Provide Agency-wide electronic case records and document management to improve case flow, capability to provide electronic court filings, and access to documents.

Reduce the costly and time-consuming paperwork burden on our customers.

Next Generation Case Management

The NxGen project started in August 2006 with the goal of building an enterprise-wide, common case management platform using Siebel Public Sector Case Management software and Documentum as the Agency Enterprise Content Management solution. The NxGen project will enable the NLRB to replace or optimize manual, paper-based processes and “stovepipe” legacy systems with a standards-based solution leveraging commercial off-the-shelf tools and a service-oriented architecture approach.

To build a solid foundation for NxGen, the NLRB analyzed its mission and, based on the analysis, revised mission-related and administrative processes as appropriate to utilize the new technologies. Likewise, the new technologies were carefully selected to ensure that they align with NLRB’s current and anticipated business needs and government regulations. The NLRB is building an enterprise-level, Agencywide solution to satisfy the needs of all its offices.

IMPROVED WEB SITE WITH CITIZEN-CENTERED PORTAL

Presidential Initiatives

(cont'd.)

In FY 2006 the Agency first launched its interactive Web site. Last year, the Web site was greatly improved with expanded document collections, enhanced navigational structure, a searchable database of case information, and new features allowing users to transact business with the Agency online. The new Web site received 2,327,830 visitors and 10,034,397 page views in FY 2008.

The NLRB places a high priority on offering publicly-available case information to case participants, citizens, and employees based on their specific needs, rather than using a “one-size-fits-all” model for information distribution.

The Agency’s portal-based public interface is one component of our long-term unified case management vision: to provide better services, more efficient casehandling, create transparency, and continue to improve quality. The portal provides a gateway for the public, including participants in NLRB cases, Agency offices, and existing systems to communicate with one another in the course of transacting business, as well as offering documents online to the general public that can be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

As with improvements to the Web site and the addition of the portal, the Board’s E-Filing project increases the capability of the public to transact business with the Agency online. In June 2003, the Board developed an E-Filing project, which enabled the public to file documents online. In January 2005, this program was expanded to include all documents in all cases before the Board. In 2007, the Agency expanded the E-Filing program to the General Counsel, the Division of Judges, and the Office of Appeals.

A significant new feature of the Agency's Web site, "My NLRB," provides users with a Web interface to various databases with case information and links to documents associated with selected cases. Users may register to be recognized by the system, which will make the E-filing process easier. The system can also save searches and other user preferences for registered users.

Presidential Initiatives

(cont'd.)

In addition, in July 2008, the NLRB launched a pilot project for the electronic issuance and service of final decisions of the Board and its ALJs. Final Board and ALJ decisions are issued electronically (E-issuance) at the end of each business day by being listed on an e-docket sheet posted on the Web site. Parties who register for electronic service (E-Service) will receive immediately, upon the posting of the e-docket sheet, an e-mail constituting formal notice of the Board's or ALJ's decision and an electronic link to the decision. This new procedure allows registered parties to receive service of decisions upon issuance rather than waiting for service by traditional means, which may take several days.

Infrastructure Modernization and Consolidation

The NLRB has developed a unified network architecture, based on standard Internet technologies which is hosted externally. By modernizing and consolidating the infrastructure in such a manner, the NLRB is able to maintain survivability by providing redundancy, disaster recovery, consolidated storage, and robust interconnection with offices of the NLRB and the public. In addition, the Agency is able to take advantage of advances in technology of local and wide area networks, high-availability computing, information lifecycle management, enterprise software, and communications systems, thereby maintaining the highest level of computer data processing service to the NLRB staff and the public.

The Infrastructure Modernization and Consolidation program:

Is foundational to the aforementioned projects and all information technology investments planned by the Agency;

Is a core component of the Agency's designed viable and executable contingency plan for the continuity of operations;

Provides a viable and consistently-available option for employees in telecommuting-eligible positions who desire workplace flexibility;

Improves the Agency's capability to integrate information technology security into our enterprise architecture processes; and

Enables the Office of the Chief Information Officer to benchmark the Agency’s information technology organization against other possible service providers.

II. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY IN THE WORKPLACE SINCE 1935

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

GOAL No. 1

GOAL NO. 1

The two goals of the NLRB’s Strategic Plan represent the core functions of the Agency in enforcing the NLRA. They thus reflect both the short– and long-term goals of the Agency. These strategic goals, as fully described in this section of the PAR, translate the Agency’s mission into major policy directions and are focused on the unique characteristics of the organization.

Resolve all questions concerning representation impartially and promptly.

Objectives:

The Act recognizes and expressly protects the right of employees to freely and democratically determine, through a secret-ballot election, whether they want to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by a labor organization. In enforcing the Act, the Agency does not have a stake in the results of that election. It merely seeks to ensure that the process used to resolve such questions allows employees to express their choice in an open, uncoerced atmosphere. The NLRB strives to give sound and well-supported guidance to all parties and to the public at large with respect to representation issues. Predictable, consistent procedures have been established to better serve our customers and avoid unnecessary delays. The Agency will process representation cases promptly in order to avoid unnecessary disruptions to commerce and minimize the potential for unlawful or objectionable conduct.

The objectives are to:

A. Encourage voluntary election agreements by conducting an effective stipulation program.

B. Conduct elections promptly.

C. Issue all representation decisions in a timely manner.

D. Afford due process under the law to all parties involved in questions concerning union representation.

Strategies:

1. Give priority in timing and resource allocation to the processing of representation cases that implicate the core objectives of the Act and are expected to have the greatest impact on the public. A core objective of the Act is to conduct secret ballot elections among employees to determine whether the employees wish to be represented by a union.

2. Evaluate the quality of representation casework regularly to provide the best possible service to the public.

3. Give sound and well-supported guidance to the parties, and to the public at large, on all representation issues.

4. Share best practices in representation case processing to assist Regional Offices in resolving representation case issues promptly and fairly.

5. Identify and utilize alternative decision-making procedures to expedite Board decisions in representation cases.

6.

Goals

(cont'd.)

Assure that due process is accorded in representation cases by careful review of Requests for Review, Special Appeals and Hearing Officer Reports, and, where appropriate, the records in the cases.

7. Analyze and prioritize the critical workforce skills needs of the Agency and address these needs through training and effective recruitment in order to achieve Agency goals.

8.

GOAL NO. 2

Provide an information technology environment that will provide NLRB employees with technology tools and access to research and professional information comparable to that of their private sector counterparts.

Investigate, prosecute, and remedy cases of unfair labor practices by employers or unions, or both, impartially and promptly.

Goals

(cont'd.)

Certain conduct by employers and labor organizations leading to workplace conflict has been determined by Congress to burden interstate commerce and has been declared an unfair labor practice under Section 8 of the NLRA. This goal communicates the Agency’s resolve to investigate charges of unfair labor practice conduct fairly and expeditiously. Where violations are found, the Agency will provide such remedial relief as would effectuate the policies of the Act, including, but not limited to, ordering reinstatement of employees; ensuring that employees are made whole, with interest; directing bargaining in good faith; and ordering a respondent to cease and desist from unlawful conduct. The Agency will give special priority to resolving disputes with the greatest impact on the public and the core objectives of the Act. These objectives are to:

Objectives:

A. Conduct thorough ULP investigations and issue all ULP decisions in a timely manner.

B. Give special priority to disputes with the greatest impact on the public and the core objectives of the Act. One of these core objectives is to prevent and remedy statutorily defined unfair labor practices by employers and unions.

C. Conduct effective settlement programs.

D. Provide prompt and appropriate remedial relief when violations are found.

E. Afford due process under the law to all parties involved in ULP disputes.

Strategies:

1. Take proactive steps to disseminate information and provide easily accessible facts and information to the public about the Board's jurisdiction in ULP matters and the rights and obligations of employers, employees, unions, and the Board under the Act.

2. Evaluate the quality of ULP casework regularly to provide the best possible service to the public.

3. Utilize impact analysis to provide an analytical framework for classifying ULP cases in terms of their impact on the public so as to differentiate among them in deciding both the resources and urgency to be assigned to each case.

4. Share best practices in the processing of ULP cases to assist Regional Offices in resolving ULP issues promptly and fairly.

5. Emphasize the early identification of remedial and compliance issues and potential compliance problems in merit cases; conduct all phases of litigation, including settlement, so as to maximize the likelihood of obtaining a prompt and effective remedy.

Goals

(cont'd.)

6. Utilize injunctive proceedings to provide interim relief where there is a threat of remedial failure.

7. Emphasize and encourage settlements as a means of promptly resolving ULP disputes at all stages of the casehandling process.

8. Identify and utilize alternative decision-making procedures to expedite Board decisions in ULP cases.

9. Analyze and prioritize the critical workforce skills needs of the Agency and address these needs through training and effective recruitment in order to achieve Agency goals.

10. Provide an information technology environment that will provide NLRB employees with technology tools and access to research and professional information comparable to that of their private sector counterparts.

FY 2008 Results

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

In FY 2007, the NLRB updated its Strategic Plan, covering the 5-year period 2007– 2012. In updating its plan, the Agency developed three new performance measures to supplement the previous measures that had been in place. The new measures emphasized the time taken to resolve cases, from beginning to end, including both the Board and General Counsel sides of the Agency. This moved the NLRB’s performance measurement approach from emphasis on individual segments of case processing, as in previous years, to one that focuses on time taken to process an entire case. While the previous measures were effective in facilitating timely, efficient, and well-managed casehandling, and will continue to be used as internal guides to assessing performance, the new measures emphasized outcomes, and served to answer the question most important to the public: What is the Agency’s overall success in bringing effective resolution to labor disputes in a timely manner?

FY 2007 was the first year in which the NLRB reported the results associated with the three new performance measures. The tables in this section show the proposed annual targets for the three overarching measures for the 5-year period covered by the current Strategic Plan (2007-2012), and the actual results achieved for FY 2007 and FY 2008 as those are currently the only two years for which actual data is available.

GOAL NO. 1: Resolve all questions concerning representation impartially and promptly.

MEASURE NO 1: The percentage of representation cases resolved within 100 days of filing of the election petition. (Table 1, page 41)

An employer, labor organization, or group of employees may file a petition in an NLRB Regional Office requesting an election to determine whether a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit wish to be represented by a labor organization. When a petition is filed, the Agency works with parties toward a goal of reaching a voluntary agreement regarding the conduction of an election. However, if a voluntary agreement is not reached, the Director of the Regional Office, after a hearing is conducted, will determine whether to conduct an election and the details of the election. The parties have a right to appeal to the Board the Director's decision. This measure reflects the percentage of representation cases closed within 100 days.

Representation cases are resolved and closed in a number of ways:

¨ Cases may be dismissed before an election is scheduled or conducted. Dismissals at an early stage in processing may be based on a variety of reasons; for example, the employer does not meet the Agency’s jurisdictional standards, the petitioner fails to provide an adequate showing of interest to support the petition, and/or the petition was filed in an untimely manner.

¨ Cases may also be withdrawn by the petitioner for a variety of reasons including the lack of support among the bargaining unit and/or failure to provide an adequate showing of interest.

¨ The majority of cases (65.6 percent of representation cases in FY 2008) are resolved upon either a certification of representative (the union prevails in the election) or a certification of results (the union loses the election).

¨ In a small percentage of cases, there are post-election challenges or objections to the election. These cases are not considered resolved and the case is not closed until the challenges and/or objections have been investigated either administratively or by a hearing and a report that has been adopted by the Board.

In FY 2008, the Agency closed 83.5 percent of its representation cases within 100 days of the filing of a petition. The Agency exceeded the interim goal of 80 percent for 2008, and it appears that it is well-positioned to achieve the 5-year goal of 85 percent.

GOAL NO. 2: Investigate, prosecute, and remedy cases of unfair labor practices by employers or unions or both, impartially and promptly.

MEASURE NO. 2: The percentage of ULP charges resolved by withdrawal, by dismissal, or by closing upon compliance with a settlement or Board order or Court judgment within 120 days of the filing of the charge. (Table 2, page 42)

A ULP case is resolved and closed when it has been finally processed. The issues raised by the charging party’s charge have been answered and, where appropriate, remedied. There is no further action to be taken by the Agency.

In FY 2008, the NLRB closed 68 percent of all ULP cases within 120 days of the docketing of the charge. In FY 2007, the Agency closed 66 percent of its ULP cases within 120 days of docketing. As evidenced by this year's achievements, we are confident that the Agency will continue to make progress in this area and anticipate that we will be able to meet the interim goal of 68.5 percent in FY 2009.

MEASURE NO. 3: The percentage of meritorious (prosecutable) ULP cases closed on compliance within 365 days of the filing of the ULP charge. (Table 3)

ULP cases are closed on compliance when the remedial actions ordered by the Board or agreed to by the party charged with the violation of the NLRA are complete. This measure includes all litigated cases including those which are appealed to the circuit courts of appeals.

In FY 2008, the Agency closed 76 percent of all prosecutable ULP cases in 365 days from the docketing of the charge. Thus, the Agency exceeded the FY 2008 interim goal of 75 percent. Assuming continued stability in resources and intake, it is anticipated that the Agency will be able to meet the long-term target of 77 percent of cases before FY 2012.

FACTORS THAT AFFECT AGENCY PERFORMANCE

Various factors can affect each goal, objective, and performance measure contained in the NLRB’s strategic and annual performance plans. These factors can also affect Agency performance as a whole. These factors include the following:

BUDGET

The FY 2009 President’s Budget request for the NLRB totals $262.595 million, which is an increase of $10.83 million over the funding provided in FY 2008. In FY 2008, the NLRB's budget request of $256.238 million was reduced by 1.747 percent ($4.476 million) because of a recission contained in the FY 2008 omnibus spending bill. The resulting appropriation of $251.762 million represented a little more than $250,000 above the Agency's appropriation for FY 2007. Approximately 80 percent of the Agency’s total budget is devoted to personnel costs. Budget shortfalls such as the one experienced in FY 2008 have a direct impact on staffing resources and limit the Agency’s ability to facilitate casehandling.

However, the requested funding for FY 2009, if enacted by Congress, will provide the resources necessary to cover staffing, space requirements, information technology, and other activities critical to handling the Agency’s caseload, and ensuring continued integration and tracking of budget and performance. Our goals assume the level of funding set forth in the President’s Budget request.

Case Intake

During FY 2008, 22,501 ULP cases were filed with the NLRB, of which 36.1 percent were found to have merit, and 3,400 representation cases were filed, of which the merit factor rate was 65.6 percent. In FY 2008, the Agency's representation case intake increased by 2.3 percent and ULP case intake increased by 1.6 percent, with overall case intake increasing by 1.7 percent.

Based on current trends, the General Counsel estimates that the total of ULP and representation cases will remain level in FY 2009.

Factors That Affect Agency Performance (cont'd.)

Several factors could affect case intake, impacting the A