The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Strategic Plan

2014 – 2018

March 10, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

I. Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1

II. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2

III. Background on the Review Commission............................................................................ 3

IV. Mission Statement............................................................................................................... 4

V. Vision Statement................................................................................................................. 4

VI. Values ................................................................................................................................. 4

VII. Strategic Goals.................................................................................................................... 5

VIII. Strategic Plan Linked to Annual Performance Plan............................................................ 7

IX. Strategies for Improving Public Service ........................................................................... 13

X. External Factors................................................................................................................ 15

XI. Consultation Planning Process.......................................................................................... 16

XII. Program Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 17
1

I. Executive Summary

Mission

Adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes under the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970.

Vision

A judicial body that is recognized for being objective, fair, prompt, professional, and respected,

and creates and explains a body of law through its decisions that define and clarify the rights and 

responsibilities of employers and employees under the Act.

Values

Serving as an administrative court at the hearing and appellate levels, the Review Commission’s

values and core principles include:

 Respect for the rule of law, including due process and fidelity to the agency’s mission.

 Issuance of quality decisions at both levels of Review Commission adjudication.

 Professionalism, collegiality and mutual respect among Commissioners, administrative law 

judges and staff.

 The highest ethical standards and integrity in all we do.

 Teamwork and collaboration, as befits a collegial adjudicatory body.

 Openness, transparency and stakeholder engagement.

 Responsible stewardship of Federal resources entrusted to the agency.

 Investing in and valuing the agency’s human capital.

Goals

 Strategic Goal # 1 – Respect for the rule of law by assuring fair, just, and expeditious

adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its judges.

 Strategic Goal # 2 - Expanding transparency and openness by providing for stakeholder 

engagement and ensuring that the Review Commission keeps interested parties and the 

public it serves informed of the agency’s work at all levels, consistent with due process 

requirements.

 Strategic Goal # 3 - Responsible stewardship of resources to enhance Agency operations and 

efficiencies in information management, financial management, human resources, and real 

property to accomplish the agency’s statutory and regulatory mandates.
2

II. Introduction 

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Review Commission”) is 

committed to ensuring that all parties who come before it - employers, employees, employee 

representatives, and the U.S. Department of Labor - receive fair and timely resolution of safety 

and health disputes in American work places. Consistent with the behavior of highly effective 

organizations and the Administration’s commitment to ensure an open and accountable Federal 

Government, the Review Commission is reassessing the environment within which it operates to 

become a more responsive organization – both to the parties who appear before us, as well as to 

our own employees.

In our previous strategic plan, developed in 2009, the Review Commission pledged to resolve the 

oldest cases on the Review Commission docket, some dating back to the mid-1990s. In 

particular, we defined a group of ten “legacy cases” – cases docketed at the Commission level 

prior to 2008 – and promised to resolve them all by the end of fiscal year 2011. We kept that 

promise. In resolving all of the legacy cases by the end of fiscal year 2011, we achieved a 

tremendous victory. But we also recognized that unless we invest in understanding how we 

amassed a backlog of old, complex cases at the Review Commission level, we would be destined 

to repeat that past of ineffective case management. To be effective, we must ensure that all of our 

systems are in sync with the values and guiding principles reflected in this strategic plan and 

supported by sound management practices. As our next step, we have undertaken a serious 

effort to build a legacy of innovative and effective case resolution at the Commission level by 

evaluating our processes to help ensure that the Review Commission will not be facing a similar 

buildup of older cases in the future. In addition, we are expanding our self-improvement efforts 

beyond case resolution by creating a blueprint of sustainable, innovative and efficient 

management at the Review Commission.

First, this strategic plan focuses on the importance of minimizing the average age of the agency’s 

oldest cases and continuing to reduce, in a realistic way, the average age of all pending 

Commission-level cases. Second, to the extent consistent with the agency’s statutory authority, 

the Review Commission is seeking to enhance the transparency of its operations. Third, the 

Review Commission has established a working group to evaluate the costs and efficiencies 

gained through electronic filing (e-filing) of documents before the Commission. Finally, this 

strategic plan addresses employee development indicators – specifically ensuring that staff are 

adequately trained and developed and that the agency takes advantage of the latest thinking in 

information sharing, e.g., adoption of knowledge management techniques.

At the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level, this strategic plan includes separate, updated 

targets based on the complexity and type of the case (simplified, complex, settlement part or

conventional), to better reflect the Review Commission’s recent experience. Our Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) results at the ALJ level have been impacted by a marked 

increase in the number of citations being contested and the resulting number of contests being 

docketed. In FY 2009, the Review Commission docketed 2,058 contests, whereas in FY 2010,

2,565 were docketed. This represents an increase of approximately 25 percent in one fiscal year. 

In FY 2011, the Review Commission received 3,175 new cases, which is an increase of over 50 

percent over two years. Moreover, following OSHA’s implementation of a new penalty
3

assessment policy at the beginning of FY 2011, the average penalty for a serious violation has 

increased, and the contest rate (as estimated by OSHA) has increased from seven percent in FY 

2009 to eleven percent in FY 2011 and FY 2012, which contributed to the increase in our 

caseload. While recent data suggest that the number of new cases may be stabilizing (the Review 

Commission docketed 2,696 contests in FY 2012), our FY 2012 case intake was 31 percent 

above that of FY 2009. At the same time, our case inventory at the end of FY 2012 was 48.5 

percent above that of FY 2009.

This strategic plan has been developed in accordance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

(GPRA). The agency’s annual performance budget will set forth specific performance goals and 

measures. Individual outcome measures will be established to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

following strategic goals: 1) Respect for the rule of law; 2) Expanding transparency and 

openness; and 3) Responsible stewardship of resources to enhance agency operations and 

efficiencies.

III. Background on the Review Commission

The Review Commission is an independent, adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678. Its sole statutory mandate is to 

serve as a federal administrative court providing just and expeditious resolution of disputes 

involving the U. S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), the employers OSHA has charged with violations of federal safety and health 

standards, and employees and/or their representatives. Under the statutory framework enacted 

by Congress, the Review Commission is completely separate from and independent of the 

Department of Labor and OSHA. 

The Act and the Review Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide two levels of adjudication. 

The first level provides an employer and/or affected employee who files a timely notice of 

contest with an opportunity for a hearing before a Review Commission ALJ. The ALJ’s decision 

becomes a final order under the Act unless a member of the Review Commission exercises 

his/her discretion to direct the case for review. The second level involves the Review 

Commission’s review of an ALJ decision. The Review Commission has three members, 

appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation, who serve six-year terms. Both 

before its ALJs and the Members of the Review Commission, the agency seeks to provide fair, 

impartial, and timely adjudication of the cases concerning the safety and health of employees 

working in the United States. 

The principal (National) office of the Review Commission is located in Washington, D.C. There 

are also two regional offices, one in Atlanta and one in Denver, where additional Review 

Commission ALJs and staff are assigned.
4

IV. Mission Statement

The mission of the Review Commission is to provide an impartial forum for the just and prompt 

adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes involving the Department of Labor, 

employers, and employees and/or their representatives under the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970.

V. Vision Statement 

The Review Commission strives to be:

 A judicial body that is -- and is recognized for being -- objective, fair, prompt, 

professional, and respected.

 An agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that define and clarify the 

rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the Act.

 A model Federal agency with highly effective processes, a highly motivated, qualified 

and diverse workforce, and modern information management, communications, and 

administrative systems.

 An agency that values teamwork, develops its employees, and strives to improve its 

performance, service, and value to the American people.

VI. Values 

The Review Commission is an independent Federal administrative agency that decides contests 

of OSHA-issued citations. As such, the agency functions as an administrative court and includes 

both hearing level and appellate review functions. Accordingly, the following values are 

characteristic of the Review Commission’s core principles:

 Respect for the rule of law, including due process and fidelity to the agency’s mission.

 Issuance of quality decisions at both levels of Review Commission adjudication.

 Professionalism, collegiality and mutual respect among Commissioners, administrative

law judges and staff. 

 The highest ethical standards and integrity in all we do.

 Teamwork and collaboration, as befits a collegial adjudicatory body.

 Consistent with due process requirements, openness, transparency and stakeholder 

engagement.

 Responsible stewardship of Federal resources entrusted to the agency.

 Investing in and valuing the agency’s human capital.
5

VII. Strategic Goals

The Review Commission’s strategic plan is focused on the attainment of three separate goals: 

1) Respect for the rule of law by assuring fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes 

brought before the Commission and its judges; 2) Expanding transparency and openness by 

providing for stakeholder engagement and ensuring that the Review Commission keeps 

interested parties and the public it serves informed of the agency’s work at all levels, consistent 

with due process requirements; and 3) Responsible stewardship of agency resources to enhance 

operations and efficiencies and information technology, financial management, human resources, 

and real property to accomplish the agency’s statutory mandate and other applicable law.

The Review Commission has set measurable, outcome-oriented objectives that advance the 

agency’s ability to meet these goals. The agency will include its strategic goals and performance 

objectives and their associated measures in the annual performance plans as part of its 

performance budget. The Review Commission has established performance goals to assist it in

achieving its strategic goals as summarized below:

Strategic Goal # 1 – Respect for the 

Rule of Law

Respect for the rule of law by assuring fair, just, 

and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought 

before the Commission and its judges.

Performance Goals1

1. Develop and implement case 

management practices that will minimize 

the average age of all pending Commissionlevel cases.

2. Further reduce the average age of the 

oldest pending Commission level cases. 2 

3. Resolve all priority cases in a timely 

manner.3

4. Ensure that a significant proportion of 

both complex and non-complex cases at the 

 

1 These goals will not apply to cases that are stayed at the Review Commission because criminal law investigations 

or prosecutions are being pursued.

2 The Commission intends to further reduce the average age of the oldest fifteen (15%) percent of pending cases.

External factors, such as lack of a quorum or recusal of a Commissioner, may adversely affect the Commission’s 

ability to meet these goals. See “External Factors” on page 14. 

3

Priority cases include Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b) cases, Commission Rule (“CR”) 101(a) 

defaults, court remands, and interlocutory reviews. However, some FRCP 60(b) and CR 101(a) cases—those with 

significant threshold issues—are not treated as priority cases because of the complexity of those issues. Also, where 

the parties have indicated intent to settle a priority case, the time frame will be tolled. 
6

ALJ level are resolved within one year to 

20 months from docketing.

4

5. Improve training opportunities for 

administrative law judges.

Strategic Goal # 2 -- Expanding 

Transparency and Openness

Expanding transparency and openness by 

providing for stakeholder engagement and 

ensuring that the Review Commission keeps 

interested parties and the public it serves 

informed of the agency’s work at all levels, 

consistent with due process requirements.

Performance Goals

1. Ensure that the Review Commission’s 

website is accessible to people with 

disabilities and serves as a useful repository 

for information about the agency and its 

adjudicatory activities.

2. Produce timely and accurate reports on 

the Review Commission’s activities, 

including all reports required by law.

3. Enhance the agency’s FOIA processing 

system by developing internet-based 

capabilities. 

4. Broaden the Review Commission’s 

outreach activities with other Federal 

agencies and the affected public, including 

targeted education and outreach for 

individuals with limited English 

proficiency (LEP).

5. Publish significant procedural decisions 

and non-dispositive orders separately from 

other decisions. 

Strategic Goal # 3 – Responsible 

Stewardship of Resources to Enhance 

Agency Operations and Efficiencies 

Performance Goals

1. Develop and present an annual budget 

and performance plan that clearly present 

how the organization will accomplish 

 

4 Complex cases have one or more of the following characteristics: intricacies of the law; number of parties; volume 

of documents, including transcripts; large number of witnesses (including expert witnesses in such fields as 

engineering, architecture, construction, soil, physics, epidemiology, pathology, neurology and infectious diseases); 

length of the trial; large proposed penalties; number of alleged violations, items (including distinct and separate 

items), and affirmative defenses; technical, novel, difficult or new standards raised; type of cases, such as those 

involving toxins (such as asbestos and lead); or extensive pre-trial discovery, including large numbers of 

interrogatories, conferences, and motions.
7

Responsible stewardship of Agency resources to 

enhance operations and efficiencies in 

information technology, financial management, 

human resources, and real property to 

accomplish the agency’s statutory and 

regulatory mandates.

government-wide management priorities, 

agency-wide goals, and organizational 

goals.

2. Implement a comprehensive human 

capital plan designed to recruit, retain and 

develop staff; support succession planning 

by strategically aligning present and future 

human capital needs and workforce 

planning; and evaluate the performance 

management system based on individual 

and organizational effectiveness.

3. Integrate knowledge management 

processes into a plan to capture, share and 

generate knowledge and establish a unified 

knowledge network of people, processes 

and technology to enhance operations and 

efficiencies in all aspects of essential 

Agency operations.

4. Improve technology infrastructure 

through efficiencies and investments (e.g., 

training, equipment, and services) to 

support the effective use of broadband, 

cyber security, and energy efficiency.

5. Use existing and real property more 

effectively by implementing energy 

efficiency practices, space alignment 

efforts (e.g., sustainability) and expanding 

telework.

VIII. Strategic Plan Linked to Annual Performance Plan

The Review Commission will formulate performance measures for its strategic goals and each of 

the related outcome performance goals. The performance measures will be identified in the 

annual performance budget. They will be used to determine the achievement of the strategic and 

performance goals. These measures will be assessed using concrete and clearly observable 

outcomes based on the Review Commission’s annual performance plan.

The table below illustrates the relationships between the performance goals in the strategic plan 

and the potential performance measures currently being considered for inclusion in the Review 

Commission’s performance plan.
8

STRATEGIC PLAN PERFORMANCE GOALS AND PERFORMANCE PLAN 

MEASURES

PERFORMANCE GOALS PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FY 2018 TARGETS

Strategic Goal # 1

1. Develop and implement 

case management practices 

that will minimize the 

average age of all pending 

Commission-level cases.

-Average age of all pending 

Commission-level cases.

-Average age of all pending 

Commission-level cases 

twenty months or less.

2. Further reduce the average 

age of the oldest pending 

Commission level cases.

-Using experience gained from

the recent disposition of the 

legacy cases, as well as 

recommendations derived from 

Commission’s public meeting 

on legacy cases, to develop and 

implement case management 

practices that minimize the 

average age of the oldest fifteen 

(15%) percent of pending 

cases.5

-All new procedures 

developed and implemented 

by the end of fiscal year 

2018. A 25% reduction in the 

average age of those cases 

from fiscal year 2013. 

3. Resolve all priority cases 

in a timely manner.

-Percent of priority cases 

disposed of within 6 months.

-Dispose of 100% of all 

priority cases within 6 

months of designation.

 

5 The Review Commission’s Strategic Plan that covered FY 2010-2015 defined legacy cases as “all cases docketed 

at the Commission level prior to 2008.” 
9

PERFORMANCE GOALS PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FY 2018 TARGETS

4. Ensure that a significant 

proportion of both complex 

and non-complex cases at the 

ALJ level are resolved within 

one year to 20 months from 

docketing.6

-Percent of simplified cases -

disposed of within one year at 

ALJ level.

-Percent of conventional cases 

disposed of within 17 months.

-Percent of settlement part cases 

disposed of within 19 months.

-Percent of complex cases 

disposed of within 20 months at

ALJ level.

-Dispose of 98% of 

simplified cases within one 

year.

-Dispose of 95% of 

conventional cases within 17

months.

-Dispose of 98% of 

settlement part cases within 

19 months.

-Dispose of 95% of complex 

cases within 20 months.

5. Improve training 

opportunities for

administrative law judges.

-Time and resources dedicated 

to judicial training with special 

emphasis on mediation and 

dispute resolution.

-An appropriate allocation of 

time and resources reflective

of the number of ALJs. 

Strategic Goal # 2

1. Ensure that the Review 

Commission’s website is 

accessible to people with 

disabilities and serves as a 

useful repository for 

information about the agency 

and its adjudicatory 

activities.

-Timeliness of postings to 

agency web site.

-All material to be posted no 

later than 7 days after 

issuance.

2. Produce timely and 

accurate reports on the 

Review Commission’s 

activities, including all 

reports required by law.

-Timeliness of submissions of 

required reports, e.g., financial 

statements, OMB, OPM, and 

EEO reports, etc.

-All material to be submitted 

by required deadlines.

 

6 Except for mandatory settlement cases, which are assigned by the Chief Judge upon receipt from the Executive 

Secretary’s Office, judges are not assigned cases until initial pleadings have been filed. This assignment generally 

occurs approximately 60 days after the case has been docketed due to the parties’ frequent requests for extensions of 

time for filing initial pleadings. 
10

PERFORMANCE GOALS PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FY 2018 TARGETS

3. Enhance the agency’s 

FOIA processing system by 

developing internet-based 

capabilities.

-Development of an electronic 

form and/or request tracking 

capability.

-Implementation of tools and 

resources to be used for 

processing and expediting 

FOIA requests electronically. 

4. Broaden the Review 

Commission’s outreach 

activities with other Federal 

agencies and the affected 

public, including targeted 

education and outreach for 

individuals with limited 

English proficiency (LEP).

-Participation in professional 

conferences and meetings and 

strategic engagement with 

stakeholders.

-Increased participation in 

activities and meetings that 

promote strategic 

engagement to disseminate

information including trends 

and services (e.g., LEP) 

provided by the agency.

-Evaluation and analysis of 

LEP services (projected 

implementation of LEP Plan 

in FY 2014).

5. Publish significant 

procedural decisions and 

non-dispositive orders

separately from other 

decisions.

-Key decisions and orders 

published within 4 months of 

the order.

-FY 2015 20 key decisions

and orders published 

annually. 

Strategic Goal # 3

1. Develop and present an 

annual budget and 

performance plan that clearly 

present how the organization 

will accomplish governmentwide management priorities, 

agency-wide goals, and 

organizational goals.

-System that links resources to 

specific activities that support 

measurable programmatic 

outcomes and objectives.

-Implementation of a 

measurement system to 

assess and report on progress 

of financial management 

improvements and budget 

integration management 

reforms.
11

PERFORMANCE GOALS PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FY 2018 TARGETS

2. Implement a 

comprehensive human capital 

plan designed to recruit, 

retain and develop staff;

support succession planning

by strategically aligning 

present and future human 

capital needs and workforce 

planning; and evaluate the 

performance management 

system based on individual 

and organizational 

effectiveness. 

- Increase personnel capabilities 

and development by improving 

training opportunities.

- One percent of basic payroll 

devoted to staff training and 

development. 

3. Integrate knowledge 

management processes into a

plan to capture, share and 

generate knowledge and 

establish a unified knowledge 

network of people, processes

and technology to enhance 

operations and efficiencies in 

all aspects of essential 

Agency operations. 

- Conduct periodic knowledge 

audits to identify sources of 

knowledge and “at risk” 

knowledge gaps.7

- Tailor IT infrastructure to 

support the effortless sharing 

and transfer of knowledge.

- Degree to which best practices 

and lessons learned are 

integrated into the performance 

management system. 

- Knowledge gaps in 

essential agency programs 

are identified and addressed 

through an on-going annual 

evaluation. 

- Annual audit to ensure that 

technology is aligned with 

the needs of the Agency’s 

people and processes. 

- Use of the performance 

planning process to reflect 

the value of rewarding 

employees for creating, 

using, and sharing 

knowledge. 

 

7 Areas identified as potential “at risk” knowledge gaps include programs and functions where a subject matter 

expert is eligible to leave the Agency (through retirement or career transition) in one to three years and no backup 

expert has been identified to assume the duties and responsibilities vacated. 
12

PERFORMANCE GOALS PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FY 2018 TARGETS

4. Improve technology 

infrastructure through 

efficiencies and investments

(e.g., training, equipment, 

and services) to support the 

effective use of broadband, 

cyber security, and energy 

efficiency.

-Streamline operations and 

infrastructure to eliminate 

duplication; minimize servers, 

storage and application sprawl.

-Maintain standardized 

platforms including hardware 

and software.

-Improve

network/communications to 

ensure customers can access 

necessary information without 

delay.

-Reduce physical servers 

through virtualization.

-Reduce the number of 

operating systems in use.

-Increase bandwidth for 

migration to cloud

efficiencies.

5. Use existing real property 

more effectively by 

implementing energy 

efficiency by implementing 

energy practices, space 

alignment efforts (e.g., 

sustainability) and expanding 

telework.

-Implement measures to reduce 

operating expenses when 

negotiating lease and develop a 

system to evaluate areas of 

consumption that impact 

sustainability.

-Achieve a 15 percent 

reduction in operating 

expenses through 

sustainability efforts.
13

IX. Strategies for Improving Public Service 

The Review Commission’s strategies for achieving its public service goals are outlined below. 

A. COMMISSION LEVEL

 Focus on reducing the average age of the oldest pending cases and of all pending cases, 

with immediate aim of developing and implementing improvements in case management.

 Expedite the disposition of priority cases that are designated as requiring rapid action 

(e.g., court remands, interlocutory reviews, and Rule 60(b) cases), such that they are 

disposed of within six months of designation.

 Expand knowledge management and research tools to accelerate the preparation of cases 

and issuance of Commission decisions.

 Assess whether to establish an ADR program at the Review Commission level.

 Identify and provide training opportunities to all agency attorneys and support staff that 

will enhance their capabilities, such as training on technical and legal issues, legal 

writing, ethics, and technology and case management.

 Use individual performance plans that support priorities in the Review Commission’s 

strategic and annual performance plans.

 Assign teams of attorneys and other staff to large, complex cases to speed their 

preparation and issuance.

 Implement appropriate changes to the Agency’s procedures to improve case processing at 

the Commission level. 

B. ALJ LEVEL

 Expedite the assignment of cases to judges.

 Use objective criteria to designate complex cases and track the processing of these cases.

 Closely monitor case performance, and improve case management information systems 

and reports.

 Conduct early review and screening of potentially complex cases to expedite the 

disposition of such cases.

 Implement appropriate changes in the agency’s Rules of Procedure to improve case 

processing (e.g., Mandatory Settlement Part and Simplified Proceedings), and seek new 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, including a review of recommendations 

resulting from the evaluation of the Mandatory Settlement Part. 

 Provide training to all judges on a variety of subjects, including technical and legal 
14

issues, legal writing, case management, and ADR to help them develop services and 

processes equal to the very best in judicial arenas.

 Continue to use a team of judges to handle, on a rotational basis, extremely complex 

cases and assign appropriate staff to timely process and monitor such cases, including 

settlement discussions. 

C. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEVEL

 Develop and present an annual budget and performance plan that clearly present how the 

organization will accomplish government-wide management priorities, agency-wide 

goals, and organizational goals. 

 Provide greater public access to Review Commission activities, information and 

decisions, including education and outreach for LEP individuals and posting procedural 

decisions and non-dispositive orders on the Review Commission’s website. 

 Improve the efficiency of filing documents by implementing technology that enables

electronic transmission of information required by the Review Commission (e.g., e-filing

and FOIA requests).

 Create a culture that incorporates core values and provides a work environment that

encourages diversity and workplace policies and programs that enable employees to 

excel, including special emphasis programs (People with Disabilities, Federal Women’s 

Program, Hispanic Employment Program), telework initiatives, family-friendly 

initiatives, and wellness programs.

 Assess employees’ training needs and align resources allocated for training in the 

Agency’s budget.

 Implement knowledge management practices to ensure that knowledge affecting essential 

agency programs and operations is captured, shared and generated on a continuous basis.

 Increase efficiencies in the IT infrastructure to enhance on-line research capabilities, 

library services, and telecommunications networks to ensure the use of state-of-the-art

technologies and practices.

 Continue to enhance the agency’s IT security program plan and provide IT security 

awareness training.
15

X. External Factors 

A. OSHA ENFORCEMENT

The factors which most influence the agency’s workload, and hence its strategies, are: the 

number of safety and health inspections carried out by OSHA each year, the nature of those 

inspections, and the number and characterization of violations and total penalties proposed by 

OSHA in each citation, all of which have historically been associated with increases in the 

contest rate and total number of contested citations. There has been an increase in recent years in 

both the level of proposed penalties and the contest rate. This has translated into an increase in 

both the total number of contested cases and the number of complex cases, which typically have 

longer and more costly trials. Consequently, as discussed previously with respect to the ALJ 

caseload increase, the overall workload has increased both at the Administrative Law Judge and 

at the Commission levels.

B. REVIEW COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP 

Achieving the goals depends on having a quorum, as well as the number of sitting 

Commissioners, as Review Commission member vacancies directly affect the agency’s 

performance at the appellate level. The Act requires the affirmative votes of two Commissioners 

to decide a pending case. During periods when the Review Commission lacks the statutory 

quorum of two Commissioners, no cases can be decided, although one Commissioner can direct 

a case for review. Moreover, with only two Commissioners it can be more difficult to reach an 

agreement sufficient to dispose of a pending case as both must agree on all of the issues in the 

matter. Over the seven-year period starting with FY 2005 and continuing into FY 2012, the 

Review Commission has been without a third Commissioner for extended periods of time.

8

 With 

fewer than three members, deadlocks on votes may result (“impasses”), action on important 

issues may be postponed, and action on pending cases may be delayed. In addition, a large 

and/or complex case has a greater likelihood of impasse with only two Commissioners. 

Furthermore, individual Commissioners may be recused from specific cases (there is currently

one such matter), with the result that action on this case is impossible with only two 

Commissioners.

This strategic plan assumes that all three Commissioner positions will be filled. With a full 

complement of Commissioners on board, the Review Commission is optimistic that it can meet

its high goals set forth for appellate level decision-making. To the extent that the agency 

operates with less than a full complement of Commissioners, achieving the goals in this strategic 

plan will be more difficult. 

 

8 There were significant periods of time during which the Review Commission operated without a full Commission 

from FY 2005 through FY 2012. For example, from April 28, 2005 through June 8, 2006, which is 407 days, the 

Commission operated with only two Commissioners. A subsequent vacancy of 993 days existed on the Commission 

from April 28, 2007 through February 15, 2010. Then, ending in FY 2012, the Agency operated without a full 

Commission for 521 days (April 28, 2011 through September 30, 2012).
16

C. NATURE OF CASES AT THE REVIEW COMMISSION LEVEL

The Review Commission’s goal in managing case production is to manage case inventory so as 

to minimize the average age of pending cases as well as the average age of its oldest cases. 

However, the increasing complexity of the cases at the trial level may result in a higher 

percentage of cases being petitioned for review. 

D. NATURE OF CASES AT THE ALJ LEVEL

There are also a variety of factors that could affect the Review Commission’s ability to meet its 

goal at the ALJ level. These include: (1) the magnitude and nature of the cases received, (2) the 

success of Simplified Proceedings and Mandatory Settlement procedures in reducing the length, 

complexity or number of hearings needed, and (3) the number, length, and complexity of 

hearings held. In 2005, the Review Commission revised its Rules of Procedure. Several changes 

were implemented in the Revised Rules including the lowering of the threshold for cases eligible 

for mandatory settlements and the raising of the aggregate penalty for entry of cases into 

Simplified Proceedings. While the agency has revised its Rules of Procedure to change the 

threshold for case eligibility, the impact of the changes must be monitored to ensure that 

intended results of more efficient case processing and disposition are achieved.

E. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY CHANGES

Regulatory changes by OSHA or statutory changes in the Act could potentially affect the Review 

Commission’s ability to meet the goals of this plan.

F. ADDITIONAL FACTORS

Additional factors affecting the Review Commission’s ability to meet its strategic plan goals 

include adequate funding, and the ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel for this 

specialized area of federal safety and health law.

XI. Consultation Planning Process

In developing this plan, the agency relied on an analysis of case processing procedures, case 

processing statistics from its case tracking system, the fiscal year 2011 and 2012 performance 

report, and the agency’s internal progress reports for the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 performance 

plan. The agency also reviewed plans of other Federal adjudicative agencies during the drafting 

stage of this plan. 

The Review Commission will submit copies of the updated plan to Congressional committees,

post the plan on its Internet website, and distribute the plan to the trade press, trade associations, 

labor unions, the OSHA Bar, and the Department of Labor. 
17

XII. Program Evaluation

Over the next several years, the Review Commission plans to conduct evaluations and continue 

ongoing evaluations that will provide information the agency can use to improve its operations, 

processes, and procedures. The program evaluations required under GPRA will be included in 

each of our annual performance budgets. The agency’s evaluation schedule is noted below:

 Evaluate/monitor electronic filing of legal documents.

 Evaluate the security of information technology systems and security management 

measures through the annual FISMA Audit. 

 Evaluate Agency procedures governing budget and finance, procurement, human 

resources, and time and attendance as part of the Administrative Oversight Audit.

 Coordinate and schedule audit of the Agency’s EEO program (e.g., reporting, complaint 

processing, and education and outreach).