1 

 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

 

FY 2007— FY 2012 JUNE 2007 

PROTECTING WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY 

National Labor Relations Board 
2 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction.................................................................................................. 3 

II. Mission Statement........................................................................................ 3 

III. Agency Structure and Functions................................................................ 3 

IV. Goals and Objectives................................................................................... 6 

V. Measuring Our Performance ..................................................................... 8 

VI. Strategic Initiatives.................................................................................... 10 

VII. External Factors ........................................................................................ 20 

VIII. Program Evaluation .................................................................................. 21 

IX. Office of the Inspector General Strategic Plan....................................... 23 

Appendices ............................................................................................................. 26
3 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This document updates and revises the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) six-year 

Strategic Plan published in September 2000. This Strategic Plan is intended to meet the 

requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and 

covers fiscal years 2007 through 2012. The Plan details the goals of the NLRB, and 

introduces three new overarching, outcome-based performance measures that the 

Agency has adopted to better measure and report the overall timeliness and 

effectiveness of our service to the public. Further, the Plan outlines the means and 

strategies to be employed to achieve these goals and measures. The Agency’s actual 

yearly performance against the goals and revised measures published herein will be 

included in the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress each November. 

To communicate our goals and objectives throughout the Agency and to the public, this 

Strategic Plan is posted on the NLRB web site as well as internal electronic bulletin 

boards. 

II. MISSION STATEMENT 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent administrative federal 

agency created by Congress in 1935 to administer and enforce the National Labor 

Relations Act (NLRA), which is the primary federal statute governing labor relations in 

the private sector. The Act embodies a bill of rights, which establishes freedom of 

association for the purposes of participating in the practice and procedure 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 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 mission of the Agency is to carry out these statutory responsibilities as 

efficiently as possible, in a manner that gives full effect to the rights afforded to all 

parties under the Act. 

III. AGENCY STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS 

The National Labor Relations Board's two principal functions, as reflected in our mission 

statement and general strategic goals, are to conduct secret-ballot elections among 

employees to determine whether the employees wish to be represented by a union, and 

to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices by employers and unions. In an unusual 

structure among Executive Branch agencies, the NLRB's authority does not reside in 

one central position. Rather, our authority is divided by law and by delegation between 

the five-member "Board" and the General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the 
4 

President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. This statutorily mandated division of 

authority results in the Board and the General Counsel having different and separate 

roles in many of our legal proceedings. 

Representation Proceedings 

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 an 

employer -- requesting an election to determine whether a union represents a majority 

of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit and therefore should be certified as 

such. The role of the Agency in such cases is to investigate the petition and, if 

necessary, to conduct a hearing to determine questions such as whether the employees 

constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under the Act and, if so, which employees are 

to be included in the unit and therefore eligible to vote; to conduct the election if an 

election is determined to be warranted; to 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. 

Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings 

In contrast to representation proceedings, unfair labor practices (ULPs) are remedied 

under the Act through adjudicatory procedures in which the Board and the General 

Counsel have independent functions. The General Counsel has the sole responsibility 

for investigating charges of unfair labor practice, deciding whether to issue complaints 

with respect to such charges, and prosecuting these complaints before the Board. The 

Board, in turn, acts as a quasi-judicial body, independent of the General Counsel, in 

deciding ULP cases. These cases come to the Board on appeal from administrative law 

judge decisions, which are issued following hearings when a complaint is not settled. 

Compliance Cases 

In order to obtain compliance with the NLRB’s Orders and Settlement Agreements, staff 

must follow up to ensure that the results of the processes discussed above are enforced. 

Staff work with employees whose rights have been violated to calculate backpay, work 

with respondents when terminated employees are entitled to reinstatement or backpay, 

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 administrative law judges, 

and the attorneys who serve as counsel to the Board Members. The General Counsel 

also has general supervision over the officers and employees in the Regional Offices. 

Additionally, general supervision over the administrative functions of the Agency (such 

as human resources, budget, finance, purchasing, and the leasing of office space,) has 
5 

been delegated by the Board to the General Counsel. Those supervised by the General 

Counsel, either through statutory assignment or delegation of authority from the Board, 

represent approximately 85% of the Agency's workforce. 

Current Case Processing Environment

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 private parties. About 28,000 cases are received by the Board 

through its Regional, Subregional, and Resident Offices each year. Of those, 

approximately 24,000 are unfair labor practice (ULP) cases and the remaining 4,000 are 

representation cases, which involve petitions to conduct secret ballot elections. Under 

the Act’s procedures, the General Counsel’s staff investigates the 24,000 ULP cases, 

which results in a finding of no merit—no probable cause to support the charge—about 

two-thirds of the time. These decisions are made by the Regional Directors, who have 

been delegated substantive decision-making authority over these cases. 

Of those cases in which merit is found, approximately 95 percent (96.7 percent in FY 

2006) are settled without formal litigation. Cases are settled through the Agency’s 

settlement program by which the parties agree to a remedy and thereby avoid litigation. 

It has long been the NLRB’s belief that all parties are better served if disputes are 

settled without the need for time-consuming and costly formal litigation. A one percent 

drop in the settlement rate would cost the government over $2 million dollars. 
6 

IV. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

The two goals in our Strategic Plan represent the core functions of the Agency in 

enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. They thus reflect both the short- and longterm goals of the Agency. These strategic goals, as fully described below, translate the 

Agency's mission into major policy directions and are focused on the unique 

characteristics of the organization. 

GOAL #1: Resolve all questions concerning representation impartially and promptly. 

OBJECTIVES: 

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 the 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. A description of the quality review is provided on 

page 21. 

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 regions in resolving 

representation case issues promptly and fairly. 

 

5. Identify and utilize alternative decision-making procedures to expedite Board 

 decisions in representation cases. 

6. 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 

 

7. Analyze and prioritize the critical skills needs and address these skills needs using a 

cost effective instructional delivery system that ensures timely access to the needed 

training in a work environment that encourages employees to effectively utilize their 

diverse talents in achieving Agency goals. 

 

8. Provide an information technology environment that is mainstream with other 

federal agencies and the public, and will provide NLRB employees with technology 

tools and access to research and professional information comparable to that of 

their private sector counterparts. 

GOAL #2: Investigate, prosecute and remedy cases of unfair labor practice by 

employers or unions, or both, impartially and promptly. 

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 unfair labor practice 

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. A description of the quality review is provided on page 21. 

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 regions in resolving 

ULP issues promptly and fairly. 

 

5. Emphasize the early identification of remedy and compliance issues and potential 
8 

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. 

 

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 skills needs and address these skills needs using 

a cost effective instructional delivery system that ensures timely access to the 

needed training in a work environment which encourages employees to effectively 

utilize their diverse talents in achieving Agency goals. 

10. Provide an information technology environment that is mainstream with other 

federal agencies and the public, and will provide management with the information 

it needs to manage the Agency and provide NLRB employees with technology tools 

and access to research and professional information comparable to that of their 

private sector counterparts. 

V. MEASURING OUR PERFORMANCE 

In support of our goals, strategies, and objectives, the Agency has a long, successful 

history of performance measurement focusing on timeliness and effectiveness in our 

case handling process – timeliness, because we firmly believe that "justice delayed is 

justice denied," and effectiveness, because we strive to give customers a response they 

can trust. 

In furtherance of these objectives, the Agency has developed three new overarching 

measures to replace the previous measures that had been in place. The new 

measures emphasize the time taken to resolve cases, from beginning to end, including 

both the General Counsel and Board sides. This moves our performance measurement 

approach from an emphasis on individual segments of case processing, as in previous 

years, to one that focuses on the time taken to process an entire case, from start to 

finish. While the previous measures were quite effective in facilitating timely, efficient, 

well-managed case handling, and will continue to be used as internal guides to 

assessing performance, the new measures emphasize outcomes, and serve to answer 

the central question most important to the public: what is our overall success in 

bringing quick resolutions to labor disputes. These measures and time targets are 

detailed below. Additional information regarding these measures, including annual 

targets and definitions, is provided in Appendix A. 
9 

New Performance Measures 

GOAL #1: Resolve all questions concerning representation impartially and 

promptly. 

Measure #1: The percentage of representation cases resolved within 100 

days of filing the election petition. 

Baseline: Currently, the NLRB resolves 78.0% of representation cases 

within 100 days of the filing of the election petition. 

Long-term target: 85% by FY 2012

 

GOAL #2: Investigate, prosecute and remedy cases of unfair labor practices 

by employers or unions, or both, impartially and promptly. 

Measure #2: The percentage of unfair labor practice (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. 

Baseline: Currently, the NLRB resolves 66.7% of ULP charges by 

withdrawal, dismissal, or closing upon compliance within 120 days of the 

filing of the charge. 

Long-term target: 71% by FY 2012

Measure #3: The percentage of meritorious (prosecutable) ULP cases 

closed on compliance within 365 days of the filing of the ULP charge. 

Baseline: Currently, the NLRB closes 73.6% of meritorious ULP cases on 

compliance within 365 days of the filing of the ULP charge. 

Long-term target: 77% by FY 2012

By being more outcome-based, we believe these measures will better inform the public 

as to overall Agency performance in providing quick and effective responses to labor 

disputes. As the Agency meets the time targets, they will be adjusted accordingly to 

facilitate continued efficiencies and enhancements in overall performance. 

RELATIONSHIP OF PERFORMANCE TO GOALS AND MEASURES

To facilitate achievement of our goals and measures, employee performance plans will 

be aligned with this Strategic Plan. Direct linkages between employee performance and 
10 

overall organizational performance will be incorporated into the Agency performance 

appraisal system. In particular, performance plans for Agency executives will include 

specific goals tied to those outlined herein, for which they will be held directly 

responsible. Further, there will be clear distinctions in rating distributions and 

associated pay adjustments provided to executives, to ensure that Agency executive 

performance is tied to and reflects organizational performance. 

VI. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES 

As evidenced in our goals and measures, the Agency places the highest priority on 

issues relating to the quality and timeliness of case handling. While our case handling 

procedures have been well established for many years, we have developed several 

initiatives aimed at further increasing our effectiveness in these areas. The initiatives 

described below comprise an overall Agency strategy to facilitate achievement of our 

goals and measures through special emphasis in certain program areas. 

Program Areas of Special Emphasis:

Outreach - 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 over 70 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. 

Less well known, but of equal stature in the Act, is the protection afforded to employees 

to engage in “concerted protected activity.” This activity, which can be initiated with or 

without the presence or involvement of a union, is peaceful conduct by or on behalf of 

two or more employees for “mutual aid or protection,” as described in Section 7 of the 

Act. For example, employees have the right to join together and approach their 

employer to request higher wages, to question work loads, or otherwise to deal with 

their employer about terms and conditions of employment. 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 decline to engage in this activity without fear of retribution. 

In an effort to inform working Americans fully about all their rights under the National 

Labor Relations Act, including their rights with regard to concerted protected activity, 

the General Counsel has initiated an expansion of the agency’s outreach program. 

Traditionally under this program, NLRB field and headquarters personnel meet with 

members of the labor-relations communities in their geographic areas to discuss NLRB 

procedures and developments in the law. These contacts have generally been with labor 

lawyers representing both unions and management, labor organizations and business 

groups. Among these contacts are those with the American Bar Association and State 
11 

and local bars and local chapters of the Labor and Employment Relations Association. 

Under the General Counsel’s new initiative, NLRB agents will expand the scope of their 

outreach activities. 

Independently or in partnership with other organizations such as the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, NLRB agents are initiating contact with schools, community 

groups, churches, business organizations, and others to make information about the 

NLRB available to individual workers. Brochures, model speeches and other materials to 

facilitate outreach are available to NLRB agents on the Agency’s intranet. Our Regional 

Directors will be operating under revised performance plans that will include specific 

goals with respect to the outreach activities they conduct. In addition, a new feature of 

the NLRB website, www.nlrb.gov, has been added to advertise a speaker’s bureau to 

permit individuals and groups to request that a NLRB representative address gatherings 

to present information about the Agency. Our agents will respond to these requests and 

speakers will be assigned, as appropriate. 

First Contract Bargaining - A critical responsibility of the NLRB is to conduct prompt 

and fair representational elections to resolve questions concerning representation – 

whether employees will be represented by a labor union for purposes of collectivebargaining. The General Counsel has highlighted the ancillary responsibility of the 

Agency to consider promptly and fairly ULP charges that, following the certification of a 

labor organization as the bargaining representative of a group of employees, an 

employer has failed or refused to bargain in good faith. These cases are prioritized as 

Category III under our Impact Analysis system. Further information regarding Impact 

Analysis can be found on page 12, and in Appendix B. 

First contract bargaining is the fruition of the free choice that employees have made for 

collective bargaining. That free choice needs to be enforced by protecting the collective 

bargaining process that employees chose. 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 this regard, NLRB records indicate that in the initial period after election and 

certification, charges alleging that employers have refused to bargain are meritorious in 

more than a quarter of all newly-certified units (28 percent). Moreover, of all charges 

alleging employer refusals to bargain, almost half occur in initial contract bargaining 

situations (49.65 percent). In addition, half of the Section 10(j) injunction cases which 

deal with unfair labor practices that undermine incumbent unions involve parties 

bargaining for first contracts. 

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 unfair labor practice charges dealing with first contract bargaining are 

accorded the highest administrative priority in the Regional Offices. He also has 

required the consideration of special remedies if those charges are found to have merit. 

These special remedies could include Section 10(j) injunctions and the use of the 
12 

contempt process to further monitor compliance with court enforced Board actions. 

Remedies Initiative – The remedial purpose of the Act is to make whole those persons 

who have suffered a loss as a result of unfair labor practices. Under this initiative, we 

are examining two additional areas of remedies for consistency with this basic policy: 

interest on monetary awards and remedies for “hallmark” violations during a union 

organizing drive. 

The General Counsel has recently directed the Regions to seek compound interest, 

rather than simple interest, in future unfair labor practice proceedings. A monetary 

award compensates the injured party for the amount the party would have received 

absent the unfair labor practice; interest compensates the party for the lost use of the 

money over the time it takes to adjudicate the unfair labor practice. Because 

contemporary practice is to assess compound interest on loaned funds, the General 

Counsel is asking the Board to re-examine whether simple interest properly makes 

employees whole for the lost use of money they would have received but for the unfair 

labor practices; or whether compounding of interest is necessary to make employees 

whole. 

As to the second issue, it is well recognized that certain kinds of violations during an 

organizing campaign are highly coercive and not easily eradicated. These so-called 

“hallmark violations” – threats of closure, unlawful discharge of union adherents, threats 

of job loss, and the grant of significant benefits – can undermine the conditions for a 

free and fair election. For this reason, in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 

(1969), the Supreme Court upheld the Board’s right to issue a remedial bargaining order 

where an employer’s hallmark violations undermine a union’s majority and impede the 

election process. At the same time, because an election is the preferred means of 

resolving representation questions, the Board and courts have been wary of granting 

remedial bargaining orders where, even though hallmark violations have occurred, they 

have not clearly precluded the possibility of holding a fair election. It is appropriate to 

examine whether remedies short of a bargaining order should be added to the Board’s 

traditional remedies in such cases, to insure that any election held will be conducted in 

an atmosphere free of coercion. A decision on this issue is anticipated during the latter 

part of FY 2007. 

Impact Analysis - This prioritization system provides an analytical framework for 

classifying cases pending before the General Counsel so as to differentiate among them 

in determining the resources and urgency to be assigned to each case. It requires that 

all incoming cases at the field level be assessed in terms of their impact on the public 

and their significance to the achievement of the Agency's mission. Category III cases 

are of the highest priority, with the shortest processing time target. These may be 

cases where the alleged unlawful activity is having a demonstrable impact on the 

general public through disruptions of business activities. Similarly, charges that could 

significantly affect many employees, or most of the employees in a small complement, 

are also prioritized as Category III. As indicated, these Category III cases are to be 

handled most promptly and have all necessary resources assigned to that processing. 

Depending on their relative impact, other cases are placed in Category II or Category I, 

with longer processing times. The time targets for the different categories are reviewed 
13 

on an ongoing basis, and revised as necessary to promote increased efficiency and 

effectiveness in case processing. See Appendix B for further information regarding 

Impact Analysis. 

Measures to Expedite Case Processing - 

Casehandling Procedures:

Public Information Program - One of the critical services provided to employers, 

unions, and employees is the Agency’s Public Information Program. In FY 2006, the 

Agency’s 51 Field Offices received 182,161 public inquiries regarding work place issues. 

In responding to these inquiries, Board agents spend a considerable amount of time 

explaining the coverage of the NLRA, accepting charges, or referring parties to other 

federal or state agencies. 

The public can also contact the Agency through a toll-free telephone service designed to 

provide easy and cost-free access to information to the public. 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 2006, the toll-free 

telephone service received 68,018 calls, of which 25,849 were connected to Regional 

Offices for further assistance. 

To extend its public services efforts across the Internet, the Agency website, 

www.nlrb.gov, was revised recently to enhance ease of use and effectiveness. Included 

on the website is a public information “Questions” page which is designed to provide 

answers to frequently asked questions involving the NLRA and NLRB procedures. Since 

its inception on February 28, 2005, this new feature has received 1,447,969 visits, 

513,799 of which involved inquiries that could be satisfied by answers provided through 

the site’s electronic search system. In addition, Agency personnel provided 12,754 

direct email responses to specific inquiries from the public. 

The rate of charge acceptance (percent of inquiries from the public in which the contact 

results in a charge) was approximately 5.2 percent in FY 2006, versus 9.7 percent prior 

to initiation of the Public Information Program. Thus, through this Program, the Regions 

have been very successful in disseminating accurate, thorough information to the public, 

that has increased the likelihood that subsequent charges filed have merit. 

Revision of Casehandling Guidance - During the last several years the General 

Counsel’s Office has sought to update and improve the guidance available to Regional 

Office managers to achieve the highest level of case handling efficiency and 

effectiveness. One thrust of this effort has been to update the case handling and 

administrative manuals published in print and electronic media. The three part NLRB 

Casehandling Manual is the basic staff guide for the processing of unfair labor practice 

and representation cases. It is also available to and widely utilized by party 

representatives coming before the agency. The first part of the Manual concerning 

unfair labor practice cases was fully reworked in 2003. The second part of the Manual 

deals with representation case processing, and also received a major updating in 2003. 
14 

The third volume of the Manual, dealing with the processing of compliance cases, was 

recently posted on the Agency’s website, and completes the trilogy of updated, revised 

guidance available to our employees and customers.

IRAP (Interregional Assistance Plan) - As we have since the inception of Impact 

Analysis, the Field Organization of the NLRB continues to use the Interregional 

Assistance Program (IRAP) to meet case processing exigencies. Under IRAP, a Regional 

Office can receive assistance, if it is having difficulty processing its cases in a timely 

manner because of a sudden influx of cases. This assistance is provided by a 

neighboring Region, which can assume responsibility for case handling in contiguous 

counties or by a remote Region, which can perform “portable” work. This work may 

consist of drafting Regional Director decisions after the conduct of pre-election hearings 

in representation matters or conducting remote investigations of unfair labor practice 

charges that lend themselves to such investigations. 

Consent Election Agreements - Currently, the Agency has consent election 

agreements which provide that appeals go to the Regional Director and waive the 

parties’ right to appeal to the Board. This option is rarely utilized by the parties, though 

it is generally much faster. In order to better serve the public, we will be exploring ways 

to market this option more effectively so that representation cases can be more quickly 

resolved. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Pilot - In December 2005, the National Labor 

Relations Board created a pilot “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) program to assist 

the parties in settling unfair labor practices cases pending before the Board on 

exceptions to decisions issued by the Agency’s administrative law judges. The pilot ADR 

program will run for a two-year period. If successful, it will be implemented 

permanently. 

This program is in addition to the Settlement Program conducted by the General 

Counsel, (see discussion under Current Case Processing Environment, Section III.) 

The Board established this 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 

administrative law judge’s decision will resolve the contested matter. The Board will be 

able to cease its deliberations on the case and the Board Members and their staffs will 

be freed to turn their attention to other matters. In addition, as approximately 50 

percent of Board decisions generate 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 after the merits litigation before the 

Board and courts. Resolution of the matter through the ADR process invariably includes 

the settlement of those compliance details as well – for example reinstatement and 

backpay – making further proceedings before the Agency unnecessary. 

Participation in the program is voluntary, and a party who enters into settlement 
15 

discussions under the program may withdraw its participation at any time. The Board 

provides the parties with an experienced neutral, usually an NLRB administrative law 

judge, to facilitate confidential settlement discussions to explore resolution options that 

serve the parties’ interests. Where feasible the settlement conferences are held in 

person, but some conferences may be held telephonically. The Board stays further 

processing of the unfair labor practice case for 60 days from the first meeting with the 

neutral or until the parties reach a settlement, whichever occurs first. Extensions of the 

stay beyond the 60 days may be granted by the neutral only with the agreement of all 

parties.

Representation Case Triage - In a strategy similar to Impact Analysis, representation 

appeals cases pending before the Board are categorized, prior to assignment, according 

to the complexity of the issues and fact patterns. The most complex Category III cases 

still receive the traditional, lengthy written analysis due to the legal issues involved. 

However, in Category I and II cases, involving more routine factual patterns and settled 

Board precedent, the written legal analysis is substantially reduced from the pre-triage 

approach, increasing the overall speed of representation appeal processing. 

Alternative Decision-Making Procedures - We have instituted several procedures at 

the Board level in Washington that are specifically aimed at reducing case processing 

times while still preserving high quality decisions: 

Super-panels: In this procedure, a panel of three Board members hears oral 

presentations of cases from staff involving issues that lend themselves to quick 

resolution, eliminating written analysis by each Board member's staff and 

intermediate levels of review. Issues can be resolved very quickly, sometimes only 

a few days after an appeal or exceptions are filed. The procedure is most often 

used to avoid delays in conducting elections and deciding the merits of objections, 

and sometimes used to decide other types of representation and unfair labor 

practice cases. 

 

Speed-Team Subpanels: Here, the assigned originating Board Member identifies 

cases involving straightforward issues which, with the agreement and early 

involvement of the other two panel members, can be drafted by Board members' 

staff and circulated promptly, without the need for detailed, time-consuming 

memoranda. 

Super Speed-Team Subpanels: This is an expedited procedure used in cases 

involving very straightforward issues which are highly likely to result in a 

unanimous vote to short-form adopt the underlying decision of the judge, Regional 

Director or hearing officer. Unlike Speed Team processing, under the Super Speed 

Team procedure the draft Board decision is not formally circulated, and the decision 

usually issues or enters the issuance process the same day the subpanel agenda 

meeting is scheduled. A Super Speed-Team case is presented on an expedited 

basis to each participating Board member by a staff representative, usually with a 

draft decision submitted to the Board Member for approval. Frequently, the draft is 

approved by all participating Board members during the staff presentations of the 

case, eliminating the need for a formal subpanel agenda meeting. 
16 

Settlement judges: In appropriate cases, the Chief Administrative Law Judge can 

appoint a settlement judge to work informally with the parties in an effort to reach 

a settlement. This process avoids costs to the parties and the public, and the delay 

required by a formal hearing and possible appeals. If a settlement is not reached 

informally, the case proceeds to a hearing before an administrative law judge other 

than the settlement judge. 

Other procedures: These include the sharing of legal memoranda among the 

different Board Member staffs, shortening the length of legal memoranda, the use 

of a “focus list” of cases targeted for issuance, and the use of case “advocates.” 

Management of Resources and Technology:

Workforce Planning – The NLRB has always sought to operate effectively by efficient 

management of its human resources. A well-trained professional and support staff is 

essential to the effective and efficient achievement of the Agency’s mission and the 

meeting of its performance goals. The need to make the most efficient use of existing 

human resources and to attract qualified staff will become more critical in the next few 

years as by the end of FY 2007, 44 percent of GS 13-15 supervisors and 78 percent of 

Senior Executive Service members in the Agency will be eligible to retire.

The NLRB workforce is spread throughout the country, with about 500 employees 

located in the Washington, D.C. headquarters, and 1,300 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 case-handlers 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 Agency-wide workforce assessment 

that was completed in FY 2004. The assessment resulted in a five-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. 

As a part of this Workforce Plan, a new initiative to increase the skills of Agency 

supervisors, managers, and executives was implemented. Additionally, new training 

initiatives were developed to enhance the skills of the professional and support staff. 

Programs were also created to train managers (through details to other offices) in areas 

other than where they are assigned. These programs broaden managers’ knowledge 

and skills, facilitate cross-training, and enhance Agency flexibility, efficiency and 

effectiveness. As a result of these initiatives, the Agency now offers the following: 

 Management Development Program – includes training for new supervisors 

 Trial training 

 Training on Compliance-related topics 

 Weekly videoconference training for targeted groups of Field employees 
17 

 Support staff skills and organizational training 

 Training materials developed by Agency professionals on developing areas of Board 

law or procedures 

 

In FY 2006, the Agency also took steps to implement an entry-level professional 

recruitment program, which will allow the Agency to better compete for entry-level 

applicants and plan its workforce hiring needs. 

Technology and E-Government Advances - To support its mission and goals, the 

NLRB is committed to the development and continued maintenance of a mainstream 

information architecture and infrastructure that utilizes current technological advances 

to support program and administrative efforts. The Agency’s Information Technology 

(IT) initiatives support its broader efforts to improve productivity and provide greater 

transparency. These initiatives, consistent with the Expanding Electronic Government 

element of the President’s Management Agenda, focus on citizen-centered and resultsoriented principles. 

During the past year, the NLRB launched major information technology initiatives that 

are part of the Agency’s implementation of the President’s Management Agenda. These 

initiatives fall under three major categories: (1) Next Generation Case Management; (2) 

Improved Web Site with Citizen-centered Portal; and (3) Infrastructure Modernization 

and Consolidation. 

Next Generation Case Management (NGCM)

The vision for the Next Generation Case Management (NGCM) project is to build an 

enterprise-wide, common case management platform using the latest technologies for 

interfacing with the public and managing cases across NLRB’s offices in an automated, 

efficient and transparent way. The NGCM 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 (COTS) tools and a 

Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach. 

NGCM eventually will replace the various case tracking systems presently deployed at 

the NLRB, with the exception of the recently developed Judicial Case Management 

System (JCMS), which will become part of the enterprise solution. 

Improved Web Site with Citizen-centered Portal 

The NLRB recognizes a high priority need to offer 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. As importantly, the Agency 

understands the significance of three technology trends: 

• An emphasis on enterprise architecture and the need to harmonize IT investments 

across the Agency; 

• The dominance of the Web platform and the desire within enterprises to work from 

a common Web application development and information platform; and 
18 

• The transition to a more componentized, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) 

which utilizes a common platform for services to be integrated. 

Building a portal-based public interface is one component of the long-term unified case 

management vision: to be able to provide better services, more efficient case handling, 

greater transparency, and continue to improve quality. This important step will provide 

a gateway for the public, including participants in NLRB cases, the Agency and existing 

systems to communicate with one another in the course of transacting business, as well 

as offering FOIA-able documents online to the general public. 

With this system in place the Agency will be poised to migrate legacy systems to a 

common platform seamlessly without interrupting the services we are currently 

providing. The NLRB Portal Project will offer a self-service solution to citizens so they 

might obtain, maintain, and share information. Having a broader group review case 

data will mitigate risks associated with inaccurate or incomplete data in our internal case 

processing systems. 

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. 

Beginning 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. The Agency is now expanding the E-Filing 

program to the General Counsel, Judges Division and the Office of Appeals. 

In addition, the Agency is piloting electronic solutions in other areas. For instance, the 

Office of Appeals has converted to an electronic format for investigative case files. Also, 

a new pilot project by Operations-Management, Division of Judges, and Office of the 

Chief Information Officer (OCIO) was implemented in September 2005 to test electronic 

solutions for moving electronic case files between Field Offices and Headquarters Offices. 

The results of this pilot will guide the Agency toward an enterprise-wide, e-case 

management solution. 

Infrastructure Modernization and Consolidation

In FY 2005, the NLRB developed and began implementation of an ambitious plan to 

modernize and consolidate its IT infrastructure. The Agency awarded contracts for 

commercial co-location hosting, monitoring, managed services, and file server 

consolidation, consistent with the Agency's Enterprise Architecture (EA) design. 

Each of the Agency’s 51 Regional, Sub-regional, or Resident Offices throughout the 

United States and Puerto Rico presently operates network servers to support mission 

critical applications. The Agency is developing a unified network architecture, based on 

standard Internet technologies and hosted by a commercial services provider. By 

modernizing and consolidating the infrastructure in such a manner, the NLRB will be 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 will be able to take advantage of advances in technology of local and wide 

area networks, high-availability computing, information lifecycle management, 
19 

enterprise software, and communications systems, thereby maintaining the highest level 

of computer data processing service to the NLRB staff and the public. 

Videoconference Testimony - In order to become more citizen-centered, the Agency 

is studying allowing witnesses in pre-election representation case hearings, where 

credibility is not an issue, to testify via videoconferencing equipment. As well as being 

more convenient for witnesses, it is hoped that an expanded use of the 

videoconferencing equipment could save time and money for all participants, as 

hearings are often postponed due to the unavailability of witnesses. Videoconference 

testimony would expedite and improve the election process and provide better service 

to the public. 

Telework - Attorneys and investigators employed by the NLRB in Washington and in 

the field have long worked away from their offices. By its very nature “field” work 

involves going to the homes and places of business of parties filing and responding to 

unfair labor practice charges. In addition, professionals working on highly portable 

work such as trial briefs and transcript review and decision drafting, can be authorized 

to perform “project work-at-home.” Regular work-at-home is also authorized for 

employees whose work assignments can be accomplished off site. 

Flexible Work Assignment Program - To facilitate the Agency’s efforts in meeting its 

operational needs and to enhance employee opportunities for career development, the 

Agency implemented a Flexible Work Assignment Program within its headquarters 

offices. Under the program, work may be assigned from one Branch to another Branch 

in the Division of Enforcement Litigation, and from one Division within the General 

Counsel’s office to another. 

Streamlined Regional Office Management Structure (Deputy Director Positions)

- Traditionally, Regional Offices are staffed with 25-45 professional employees and 

process between 900 – 1800 cases annually. When intake and staffing levels increase in 

a Region appreciably above the higher ends of those ranges, adjustments to regional 

boundaries or the creation of a new office are considered. When there are appreciable 

declines in intake and staffing, consideration is given to eliminating the Regional Director 

position in the office and changing the status of the office to that of a satellite office of 

another Region. Where declines in intake and staffing are significant but do not warrant 

a change in the status of an office, the General Counsel has developed a new position 

that will result in the elimination of one management position in the office. In a 

traditional Regional Office the SES Regional Director has two immediate subordinates: 

the Regional Attorney (RA) and the Assistant to the Regional Director (ARD). The new 

position: Deputy Regional Director, provides the necessary immediate support for the 

Director of a smaller Region and replaces both the RA and ARD subordinate manager 

positions.

Financial Management - The Agency upgraded its financial system to the 

Department of Interior’s National Business Center’s (NBC) Momentum Financials in FY 

2004. This system has provided better web-based functionality, and improved 

integration with other systems. Currently, Momentum is integrated with the Federal 

Personnel and Payroll System, providing for more efficient payroll processing. 
20 

Additionally, Momentum will be fully integrated with the Agency’s new E-travel 

compliant travel manager system, which is scheduled to be fully implemented in FY 

2007. The improved integration of these systems will enhance financial reporting 

capabilities, facilitate more efficient and effective program and administrative 

performance, and enable continued compliance with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 

1990. NBC is scheduled to implement a new version of Momentum at the NLRB in FY 

2008. 

VII. EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The goals and measures set forth in this Strategic Plan represent the best efforts of the 

Agency to plan for the future, using all resources to the maximum and effectuating our 

goals in as economical a manner as possible. The Agency's ability to accomplish the 

goals is also dependent, in part, upon the continued stability of the economy and the 

current level of union activity remaining constant. 

Budget 

Our goals and measures assume full funding of Agency budgets as submitted by the 

President to Congress. As a labor-intensive agency, over 90% of our budget is 

dedicated to fixed costs, including about 80% for salaries and benefits. If less than the 

full funding request is authorized, it may limit this Agency's ability to produce the 

results and benefits set forth in this Plan. 

 

Case Intake 

Several factors could inhibit the Agency's ability to accomplish the goals set out in this 

plan. While the Agency does project caseload based on known factors, and recent 

history, as noted previously, we cannot control the number of cases filed. Public 

perceptions about unionization and the role of the Agency, employment trends, 

stakeholder strategies, the globalization of the economy, industrial economic trends, 

corporate reorganizations and the level of labor-management cooperation efforts can all 

have an impact on our case intake and the complexity of our work. Difficult issues 

affecting our ability to achieve full compliance can arise when companies relocate or 

close, dissipate or hide assets, file for bankruptcy, reorganize or operate through a 

different corporate entity. An unexpectedly large increase in our intake or in the 

complexity of issues would likely result in significant delays in processing cases. 

Settlements 

 

While the Agency has experienced outstanding success in achieving voluntary 

resolutions of representation and ULP cases and litigating cases, we cannot control the 

desires of the other parties. Parties may conclude that litigation serves their strategic 

interests. The Agency's procedures provide for administrative hearings, briefs and 

appeals. Disputes cannot always be resolved informally or in an expeditious manner. It 

is estimated that a one percent drop in the settlement rate will cost the Agency more 

than $2 million as the process becomes formal and litigation takes over. 
21 

Presidential Appointees 

The timely naming of Presidential appointees and their confirmation by the Senate is 

another factor outside the control of the Agency. A failure to timely appoint and 

confirm Board Members can lead to Board Member vacancies for months at a time, 

affecting the Board's ability to issue decisions. The adverse impact of operating with 

less than a full Board was fully described in the Congressional hearings conducted by 

the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Having a full complement of 

members increases the Agency’s ability to achieve its goals and measures. 

Legislative Changes 

 

Any regulatory or statutory changes either in the Act or in the management of the 

federal government could affect the Agency's ability to meet the goals of this Plan. 

VIII. PROGRAM EVALUATION 

As discussed previously in the Strategic Initiatives section, Impact Analysis is the case 

prioritization system utilized by the Agency to assess all incoming cases in terms of 

their impact on the public and their significance to the achievement of the Agency's 

mission. Category III cases are of the highest priority, with the shortest processing 

time target. Depending on their relative impact, other cases are placed in Category II 

or Category I, with longer processing times. We constantly review performance against 

our Impact Analysis time targets to determine whether adjustments can be made to 

better serve the public, and will continue to do so under this Plan. 

The Agency will also continue to evaluate the field offices as it has done for many years. 

The Division of Operations-Management has in place a Quality Review program for 

regional offices pursuant to which a sampling of ULP and representation case files are 

reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that they are processed in accordance with 

substantive and procedural requirements and that the General Counsel's policies are 

appropriately implemented. Those reviews have assessed, among other things, the 

implementation of the General Counsel's priorities in the areas of representation cases, 

Impact Analysis, compliance, and 10(j) injunction litigation. The results of that review 

are set forth in a written report and are incorporated into each Regional Director's 

performance appraisal on an annual basis. Additionally, personnel from the Division of 

Operations-Management conduct site visits during which they evaluate regional 

procedures in these areas. 

In evaluating the quality of our litigation, the Office of the General Counsel monitors the 

litigation success rate before the Board and before district courts with regard to 

injunction litigation. Our success rate before the Board has been in the mid to high 80 

percentile. If a field office has a success rate significantly below those standards, the 

Division of Operations-Management will examine the reasons for the deviation in order 

to determine whether or not it reflects a decrease in quality. Similarly, the Agency keeps 

abreast of its success rate before circuit courts of appeals and when the success rate 

changes significantly, the Agency will analyze the reasons for such changes, in order to 

ensure quality in its litigation. Other branches and offices, such as the Office of Appeals, 
22 

Division of Advice, Contempt Litigation and Compliance Branch and Office of 

Representation Appeals, provide valuable insight and constructive feedback on the 

performance and contributions of field offices. Finally, the Division of OperationsManagement obtains information to assess existing and potentially new programs at 

management conferences and through periodic and ongoing consultations with field and 

headquarters employees at all levels. 

The Board monitors and reviews the effectiveness and efficiency of its procedures and 

processes on a regular basis. To do so, the Board draws on both technology and human 

capital, as below: 

The Board’s Judicial Case Management System (JCMS), a case processing database, has 

been continuously enhanced since its implementation in 2000. JCMS has afforded Board 

Members, managers, supervisors, and employees ready access to the status of cases in 

real time and to a wide range of case information that was previously unavailable or, if 

previously available, was not easily accessible. 

In addition to its function as a database, JCMS has been developed as the Board’s 

principal system for the actual processing of cases. Through JCMS, the Board’s cases are 

now processed largely electronically, including the scheduling of cases for decision, the 

identification of the issues presented and internal memoranda discussing the case, the 

circulation of draft decisions, the Board Members’ votes on the draft decisions, as well as 

several of the ministerial steps needed to issue the Board’s decisions. 

Through the enhancements of JCMS, the Board has made substantial progress towards 

reaching its goal of achieving a paperless case handling process. 

The Board ‘s Triage Committee, comprising the most senior managers from each of the 

case handling offices, meets weekly to monitor case progress in Stage III cases, i.e., 

those in which a draft decision has been circulated among the Board Members. The 

Triage Committee addresses concerns relating to the processing of individual cases and 

particular groups of cases. It also discusses, initiates, recommends, and on the Board’s 

approval, implements changes designed to increase the sufficiency and effectiveness of 

casehandling at all stages of the process. 

Recently, the Board created a GPRA Coordinators Committee, comprising supervisors 

from each of the casehandling offices, to focus directly on the Board’s oldest cases under 

the Government Reporting and Results Act. The GPRA Coordinators Committee 

identifies GPRA cases for issuance each month, facilitates communication among the 

Board’s individual staffs, managers and Board Members with regard to resolving 

particular cases, and monitors the Board’s progress on these cases. 

In addition to the above, the Agency uses other internal and external resources, such as 

consultants, employee surveys, academic studies, stakeholder contacts and audits, to 

develop, implement and evaluate programs. We also expect our Inspector General to 

periodically review Agency programs, including the preparation of strategic planning 

documents. 
23 

Office of the Inspector General 

IX. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL STRATEGIC PLAN 

GOAL #1: Promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration 

of the Agency's programs and operations. 

OBJECTIVES 

A. Conduct audits and inspections of the issues, programs and operations of 

most importance to the Agency. 

B. Achieve positive change by presenting findings, identifying causes of 

reported problems, and making recommendations that are useful to the 

Agency. 

C. Acquire a staff of independent, competent personnel consistent 

with professional standards. 

STRATEGIES 

1. Solicit input from Agency employees to prepare an annual audit work plan. 

 

2. Identify ways to improve and strengthen management controls in Agency 

programs and operations. 

 

3. Establish a tracking system that provides data necessary for reporting on audit 

recommendations. 

 

4. Improve quality control of audit and inspection products. 

 

5. Establish a recruitment and training program for staff. 

GOAL #2: Prevent or detect fraud and abuse in the Agency's programs 

and operations. 

OBJECTIVES 

A. Evaluate all referrals to the OIG in an objective, timely, and lawful manner. 
24 

B. Conduct investigations in a thorough, efficient, timely, and lawful manner. 

C. Monitor referrals under investigation by other offices to ensure appropriate 

action is taken. 

STRATEGIES 

1. Operate a fraud hotline and advertise its existence and other means for 

referring matters of possible fraud or abuse to the OIG. 

 

2. Refer matters within the jurisdiction of other Agency offices, e.g., EEO,

security, or ethics, to those offices for action. 

 

3. Conduct investigations in accordance with PCIE Quality standards, identify 

program vulnerabilities and recommend ways to prevent program abuse as 

part of the investigative process. 

 

4. Report immediately to the Chairman and/or the General Counsel any serious 

or flagrant problems, abuses, or deficiencies. 

 

5. Report expeditiously to the Attorney General potential violations of Federal 

criminal law. 

6. Present findings of wrongdoing to the appropriate officials for action. 

GOAL #3: Establish a collaborative relationship with the Congress, the Board 

and Agency employees to improve Agency operations. 

OBJECTIVES

A. Keep the Chairman, General Counsel, Board, and Congress informed of 

program or operational vulnerabilities and significant issues. 

B. Respond to requests from program managers for technical advice on 

changes in program operations or new functions and activities. 

C. Operate in a manner that demonstrates values such as fairness, courtesy, 

professionalism, empathy, openness, access, and a willingness to listen. 
25 

STRATEGIES 

1. Issue semiannual reports by April 30 and October 31 each year. 

 

2. Participate in ECIE and PCIE projects to improve financial and program 

operations. 

 

3. Participate in Agency projects or provide technical advice and 

recommendations as requested. 

 

4. Review and comment on proposed laws and regulations and draft Agency 

directives. 
26 

APPENDICES 

These appendices provide additional information regarding Agency performance 

measures, further details regarding the Impact Analysis case prioritization process, 

outlines of the types of cases arising under the Labor Management Relations Act, and 

the basic procedures in the processing of cases within the Agency. 

A. Performance Measures 

B. Impact Analysis 

C. Explanation of Types of Cases and Case Handling Procedures 

 C-1. Explanation of Types of Cases 

C-2. Procedures in Cases Involving Charges of Unfair Labor Practice 

C-3. NLRB Order Enforcement 

C-4. Outline of Representation Procedures under Section 9c 
27 

 Appendix A 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

GOAL #1: Resolve all questions concerning representation impartially and promptly. 

Measure #1: The percentage of representation cases resolved within 100 days of filing 

the election petition. 

Baseline: 78.0% 

Long-term target: FY 2012 85.0% 

Annual targets: FY 2007 79.0% 

 FY 2008 80.0% 

 FY 2009 81.0% 

 FY 2010 82.0% 

 FY 2011 83.5% 

 FY 2012 85.0% 

Definitions: 

Resolve -- When a case has been finally processed with no further rights of appeal or administrative action 

required. The question as to whether or not the labor organization will represent the employees has been 

finally resolved. Representation cases are resolved in a number of ways: 

• Cases may be dismissed before an election is scheduled or conducted. Dismissals at an early stage 

in the processing may be based on a variety of reasons, for example, the employer not meeting 

our jurisdictional standards, the petitioner’s failure to provide an adequate showing of interest to 

support the petition and/or the petition being filed in an untimely manner. 

• Cases may also be withdrawn by the petitioner for a variety of reasons including lack of support 

among the bargaining unit and/or failure to provide an adequate showing of interest. 

• The majority of cases 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 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.

Counting of Days -- The Agency starts counting the 100 days on the date that the petition is formally 

docketed. 

 

GOAL #2: Investigate, prosecute and remedy cases of unfair labor practices by 

employers or unions, or both, impartially and promptly. 

Measure #2: The percentage of unfair labor practice (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. 
28 

Baseline: 66.7% 

Long-term target: FY 2012 71.0% 

Annual targets: FY 2007 67.5% 

 FY 2008 68.0% 

 FY 2009 68.5% 

 FY 2010 69.5% 

 FY 2011 70.0% 

 FY 2012 71.0% 

 

Definitions: 

Resolve -- The ULP case has been finally processed. The issues raised by the charging party’s charge 

have been answered and where appropriate, remedied. There is no further Agency action to be taken.

Counting of Days -- The 120 days is calculated from the date that the charge is docketed.

 

Measure #3: The percentage of meritorious (prosecutable) ULP cases closed on 

compliance within 365 days of the filing of the ULP charge. 

Baseline: 73.6% 

Long-term target: FY 2012 77.0% 

Annual targets: FY 2007 74.0% 

 FY 2008 75.0% 

 FY 2009 75.5% 

 FY 2010 76.0% 

 FY 2011 76.5% 

 FY 2012 77.0%

Definitions: 

Resolve -- Cases are closed on compliance when the remedial actions ordered by the Board or agreed to 

by the party charged with the violation are complete.

Counting of Days -- The 365 days is calculated from the date the charge is docketed.
29 

 Appendix B 

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impact Analysis provides an analytical framework for classifying cases so as to 

differentiate among them in deciding both the resources and the urgency to be given 

each case. Impact Analysis requires that all cases be assessed in terms of their impact 

on the public and their significance in the effective achievement of the NLRB’s mission. 

It is a system for differentiating cases so as to ensure that cases with the highest impact 

on the public are handled most expeditiously. 

The Impact Analysis model consists of three categories of cases, with Category III being 

the cases of the highest impact and Category I the lowest. Categorization is not based 

upon the type of charge filed or which section of the National Labor Relations Act may 

have been violated, but upon consideration of the relative impact on the public or a 

significant number of employees and the core purposes of the Act. A description of the 

different categories, the types of cases in each, and the applicable time targets, is 

provided below: 

Category III: Cases involving the greatest impact on the public and allegations most 

central to the achievement of the Agency mission. 

Timeframe: 7 weeks 

Types of Cases: 

• First Contract Bargaining Cases – These are cases where there are alleged 

violations that occur during the period after certification when parties are or 

should be bargaining for an initial collective bargaining agreement. First contract 

bargaining constitutes a crucial stage of the negotiation process because it forms 

the foundation for the parties’ future labor-management relationship. Initial 

contract negotiations are often more difficult than established successor contract 

negotiations since they often follow contentious representation election 

campaigns. Moreover, when employees are bargaining for their first collectivebargaining agreement they are highly susceptible to unfair labor practices 

intended to undermine support for their bargaining representative. Regional 

Offices have been instructed to focus particular attention on remedies for such 

violations and to consider whether injunctive relief should be sought to protect the 

representational choice of employees. In addition, Regional Offices are also to 

consider whether additional remedies are appropriate to fully remedy unfair labor 

practices committed during initial contract bargaining. Such additional remedies 

would include seeking a new full certification year, notice reading and publication, 

union access to bulletin boards and other means of communication, periodic 

reports on the status of bargaining and bargaining and/or litigation expenses. 

• Cases where injunctive relief may be warranted 

• Representation cases involving the resolution of a question concerning the 

collective bargaining status of the union 

• Cases that block the processing of a representation case 
30 

• Unfair labor practice cases in which the establishment or continuation of a union’s 

status as the collective bargaining representative of employees is at stake. This 

would include: cases involving bargaining orders; the relocation, transfer or 

elimination of a bargaining unit; cases where the Employer is contesting the 

certification of the union; and alleged misconduct designed to frustrate a union’s 

ability to obtain an initial contract after certification. 

• Cases involving the resolution of the question whether a strike or lockout is based 

on economic or unfair labor practice considerations 

• Any case involving the issue of whether a strike is unprotected and the status of 

strikers is at issue or the employment status of significant numbers of employees 

is to be settled 

• Cases involving a strike or an intent to strike at a health care institution 

• Cases involving a permanent or indefinite loss of employment 

• Cases where individuals have been denied work opportunities because of the 

union’s discrimination, including hiring hall refusal to refer allegations. National 

cases or cases of unusually high impact involving the national application of a 

provision affecting employment. 

• Any case where injunctive relief under either Section 10(l) or 10(j) may be 

pursued 

Category II: Cases not included in Categories III or I. They typically involve conduct 

which affects core rights under the Act, and for which there is no alternative remedy. 

Timeframe: 9 weeks 

Types of Cases: 

• Discrimination cases that do not involve a permanent or indefinite loss of 

employment 

• Refusal to hire cases 

• Picket line violence or misconduct cases where injunctive relief is not warranted 

and the violence of misconduct has ended 

• All representation cases that do not involve the resolution of a question 

concerning the collective bargaining status of the union. 

• Refusal to provide information cases 

• Cases alleging the unilateral change of terms and conditions of employment 

• Cases alleging a union’s violation of its duty of fair representation 

• Independent allegations of restraint and coercion of employees Section 7 rights 

under the Act 

Category I: Cases involving conduct for which alternative means of redress are 

available to the charging party. 

Timeframe: 12 weeks 

Types of Cases: 

• Cases that can be deferred to the parties’ grievance/arbitration procedure 

• Pension and welfare contribution collection cases 
31 

Appendix C: Explanation of Types of 

Cases and Case Handling Procedures 
 TYPES OF NLRB CASES

1. CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (C CASES)

 Charges Against Employer Charges Against Labor Organization 

 Section of Section of Section of Section of Section of Section of  the Act CA the Act CB the Act CC the Act CD the Act CG the Act CP  8(a)(1) To interfere with, restrain, 8(b)(1)(A) To restrain or coerce 8(b)(4)(i) To engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed 8(g) To strike, picket, or otherwise 8(b)(7) To picket, cause, 

or coerce employees in exercise employees in exercise of their by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting concertedly refuse to work at any threaten the picketing oof their rights under Section 7 rights under Section 7 (to join commerce, to engage in a strike, work stoppage, or boycott, or health care institution without employer where an ob(to join or assist a labor or assist a labor organization (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce notifying the institution and the to force or require an eorganization or to refrain). or to refrain). or in an industry affecting commerce,where in either case an object is: Federal Mediation and to recognize or bargain 

Conciliation Service in writing labor organization as t

 8(a)(2) To dominate or interfere 8(b)(1)(B) To restrain or coerce (A) To force or require any (C) To force or require any 10 days prior to such action. representative of its em

with the formation or admini- an employer in the selection employer or self-employed employer to recognize or or to force or require thstation of a labor organization of its representatives for person to join any labor organ- bargain with a particular labor employees of an emploor contribute financial or collective bargaining or ization or to enter into any agree- organization as the represent- select such labor organother support to it. adjustment of grievances. ment prohibited by Section 8 (e). ative of its employees if another as their collective-barg

 labor organization has been representative, unless 

 8(a)(3) By discrimination in regard 8(b)(2) To cause or attempt to (B) To force or require any certified as the representative. labor organization is cu

to hire or tenure of employment cause an employer to discri- person to cease using, selling, certified as the represeor any term or condition of minate against an employee. handling, transporting, or other- (D) To force or require any of such employees:employment to encourage or wise dealing in the products of employer to assign particulardiscourage membership in any 8(b)(3) To refuse to bargain any other producer, processor, work to employees in a parti- (A) where the employelabor organization. collectively with employer. or manufacturer, or to cease cular labor organization or in a lawfully recognized any 

doing business with any other particular trade, craft, or class labor organization and 

 8(a)(4) To discharge or otherwise 8(b)(5) To require of employees person, or force or require any rather than to employees in question concerning re

discriminate against employees the payment of excessive or other employer to recognice or another trade, craft, or class, ation may not appropri

because they have given discriminatory fees for bargain with a labor organization unless such employer is failing raised under Section 9testimony under the Act. membership. as the representative of its to conform to an appropriate

employees unless such labor Board order or certification. (B) where within the pr

 8(a)(5) To refuse to bargain 8(b)(6) To cause or attempt to organization has been so 12 months a valid elec

 collectively with representatives cause an employer to pay or certified. Section 9(c) has been

of its employees. agree to pay money or other conducted, or

things of value for serviceswhich are not performed or (C) where picketing hanot to be performed. conducted without a pe

under Section 9(c) beinwithin a reasonable petime not to exceed 30 dthe commencement of picketing; except wherpicketing is for the purptruthfully advising the p(including consumers) employer does not emmembers of, or have a with, a labor organizatidoes not have an effecinterference with deliveservices.

 2. PETITIONS FOR CERTIFICATION OR DECERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES (R CASES) 3. OTHER PETITIONS

 By or in Behalf of Employees By an Employer By or in Behalf of Employees By a Labor Organ

 Section of Section of Section of Section of Board  the Act RC the Act RD the Act RM the Act UD Rules UC  9(c)(1)(A)(i) Alleging that a substan- 9(c)(1)(A)(ii) Alleging that a substan- 9(c)(1)(B) Alleging that one or more 9(e)(1) Alleging that employees (30 Subpart C Seeking clarification of an 

tial number of employees wish to tial number of employees assert claims for recognition as exclusive percent or more of an appropriate existing bargaining unit. be represented for collective that the certified or currently bargaining representative have been unit) wish to rescind an existing bargaining and their employer recognized bargaining represen- received by the employer. * union-security agreement.declines to recognize their tative is no longer their represenrepresentative. * tative. ** If an 8(b)(1) charge has been filed involving the same employer, these statements in RC, RD, and RM petitions are not required.Charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board are letter-coded and numbered. Unfair labor practice charges are classified as "C" cases and petitions for certification or decertification of representatives as "RThis chart indicates the letter codes used for "C" cases and "R" cases, and also presents a summary of each section involved.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

BASIC PROCEDURES IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES

APPENDIX C-2

CHARGE

Filed with Regional Director;

alleges unfair labor practice by

employer or labor organization.

INJUNCTION INVESTIGATION WITHDRAWAL - REFUSAL

Regional Director must ask Regional Director determines TO ISSUE COMPLAINT -

district court for temporary whether formal action should SETTLEMENT

restraining order in unlawful be taken. Charge may, with Agency approval,

boycott and certain picketing be withdrawn before or after

cases. complaint is issued. Regional

Director may refuse to issue a

complaint; refusal (dismissal of

charge) may be appealed to General

INJUNCTION COMPLAINT AND ANSWER Counsel. Settlement of case may

General Counsel may, with Regional Director issues occur before or after issuance of

Board approval, ask district complaint and notice of hearing. complaint (informal settlement

court for temporary restraining Respondent files answer agreement subject to approval of

order after complaint is issued in 10 days. Regional Director; formal settlement

in certain serious unfair labor agreement executed simultaneoulsy

practice cases. with or after issuance of complaint,

subject to approval of Board). A 

formal settlement agreement will

provide for entry of the Board's order

and may provide for a judgment from

the court of appeals enforcing

the Board's order.

HEARING AND DECISION

Administrative Law Judge presides

over a trial and files a decision

recommending either (1) order to 

cease and desist from unfair labor

practice and affirmative relief or

(2) dismissal of complaint. If no

timely exceptions are filed to the

Administrative Law Judge's decision,

the findings of the Administrative

Law Judge automatically become

the decision and order of the Board.

DISMISSAL REMEDIAL ORDER OTHER DISPOSITION

Board finds respondent did not Board finds respondent committed Board remands case to

commit unfair labor practice and unfair labor practice and orders Administrative Law Judge

dismisses complaint. respondent to cease and desist and for further action.

to remedy such unfair labor practice.

COURT ENFORCEMENT

AND REVIEW

Court of appeals can enforce, set

aside or remand all or part of the

case. U.S. Supreme Court reviews

appeals from courts of appeals.
NLRB ORDER ENFORCEMENT CHART

APPENDIX C-3

NLRB

REMEDIAL

ORDER

VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE APPLICATION FOR PETITION FOR COURT REVIEW

If respondent complies voluntarily, COURT ENFORCEMENT Employer, union, employee, or

case is usually closed by Board can apply to appropriate any other person aggrieved by

Regional Office. However, Board court of appeals for a judgment Board's order may ask a court of

may still seek court of appeals enforcing its order. appeals to review it. If Board has

judgment enforcing its order. entered a remedial order against

petitioner, Board will usually file a

cross-application for enforcement

of its order.

INTERIM INJUNCTION COURT OF APPEALS

Court can grant Board temporary Court can enforce, set aside, or

restraining order or other relief, remand in whole or in part the

pending outcome of enforcement Board order. Court judgment may

proceeding. be reviewed by Supreme Court.

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court can affirm,

reverse, or modify court of 

appeals' judgment, or remand

case for further action.
OUTLINE OF REPRESENTATION PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 9(c)

APPENDIX C-4

 Petition filed with

 NLRB Regional Office

 Petition may be 

 Petition may be Investigation and dismissed by Regional

 withdrawn by petitioner regional determination Director. Dismissal may

 be appealed to the Board.

CONSENT PROCEDURES FORMAL PROCEDURES

Agreement for Consent Stipulation for Certification Formal Hearing Conducted Case may be transferred

 Election. Parties sign Upon Consent Election. by Hearing Officer. Record to Board by order of

 agreement waiving Parties sign agreement of hearing to Regional Regional Director at close

 hearing and consenting waiving hearing and Director of Board. of hearing, or subsequently.

 to election resulting consenting to election

 in Regional Director's resulting in certification

 determination. issued by Regional Regional Director issues Request for Review. Parties Board issues decision

 Director on behalf of Decision directing election may request Board to directing election ( or

 Board if results are (or dismissing case). review Regional Director's dismissing case).

 conclusive; otherwise action. Opposition to

 determination by Board. request may be filed.

 Ruling on request. Board

 issues ruling--denies or

 grants request for review.

 If request for review is 

 granted, Board issues

 decision affirming,

 modifying, or reversing

 Regional Director.

ELECTION CONDUCTED BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR

IF RESULTS ARE CONCLUSIVE

 (challenges not determinative IF RESULTS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE

 and/or no objections filed) (challenges determinative and/or objections filed)

 Regional Director investigates objections and/or challenges.

 (Subsequent action varies depending on type of election.)

CONSENT ELECTION STIPULATED ELECTION REGIONAL DIRECTOR OR BOARD DIRECTED

 Hearing may be

Regional Director serves on ordered by

 parties a report containing Regional Director

 recommendations to the to resolve factual

 Board. issues. 

 Regional Director serves

 or directs Hearing Officer

 to serve on parties a

 report containing

 recommendations to Board

 Regional Director Regional Director issues Board considers report and Regional Director may Board considers report and

 issues Certification final report to parties any exceptions filed issue supplemental any exceptions filed

 of Representative disposing of issues and thereto. Board issues Decision disposing of thereto. Board issues

 or Results. directing appropriate Decision directing issues and directing Decision directing

 action or certifying appropriate action or appropriate action or appropriate action or

 representatives or results certifying representative or certifying representative or certifying representative or

 of election. results of election. results of election. results of election.

 (Supplemental Decision

 subject to review procedure

 set forth above.)
32