.

WWW.FLRA.GOV 

U.S. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

Promoting and protecting labor-management relations

for effective, efficient Government.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

JUSTIFICATION
This page intentionally left blank.
UNITED STATES

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

Congressional Budget Justification

Fiscal Year 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................6

U.S. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY .......................................................................10

BACKGROUND AND MISSION ...................................................................................................................10

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART........................................................................................................................11

THE AUTHORITY .....................................................................................................................................12

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)............................................................................................12

FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL (FSIP) ..........................................................................................13

AGENCY TRENDS & CHALLENGES.................................................................................................13

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................13

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL .......................................................................................................15

AUTHORITY .............................................................................................................................................17

Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) .......................................................................................................18

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (CADRO)....................................................................19

Office of the Executive Director..........................................................................................................................20

FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL......................................................................................................20

CURRENT SERVICES ESTIMATE...............................................................................................................22

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................23

APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE..................................................................................................................23

2025 FUNDING REQUEST........................................................................................................................23

PROGRAM AND FINANCING SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................24

OBJECT CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE......................................................................................................25

EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY SCHEDULE......................................................................................................25

INSPECTOR GENERAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................26

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN ......................................................................................................29

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: WE WILL RESOLVE DISPUTES UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE IN A TIMELY, HIGH-QUALITY, AND

IMPARTIAL MANNER.........................................................................................................................30

STRATEGIC GOAL 2: WE WILL PROMOTE STABILITY IN THE FEDERAL LABORMANAGEMENT COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING LEADERSHIP AND GUIDANCE THROUGH

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND EDUCATION .......................................................50

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: WE WILL MANAGE OUR RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY AND

EFFICIENTLY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE............................56
6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA or Agency) is pleased to present its FY 

2025 Congressional Budget Justification in the amount of $32,100,000. This request 

represents an increase of $2.7 million (9.2%) over the FY 2024 annualized Continuing 

Resolution rate of $29.4 million. This funding would allow the agency to maintain current 

staffing levels, including by covering the anticipated pay raise.

The FLRA is an independent Federal agency created by Title VII of the Civil Service Reform 

Act of 1978, also known as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the 

Statute), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135. The FLRA is a small agency with a large mission: overseeing 

the labor-management programs of most Federal agencies. Thus, the FLRA is the rare type of 

agency whose performance actually affects other Federal agencies. The FLRA’s governing 

statute requires the staffing of separate components including: an Office of General Counsel

(OGC), headed by a Presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed (PAS) General Counsel, that 

prosecutes claims of unfair labor practices (ULPs) and oversees the elections of labor 

representatives (REP); an Authority component with three PAS Members who adjudicate 

cases; and the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which swiftly resolves bargaining impasses in 

lieu of strikes.

A fully functioning FLRA saves taxpayer dollars throughout the Federal Government. When it 

has sufficient staff, the FLRA reduces the time, money, and energy that agencies and their 

employees spend in labor disputes—so more of those resources can be focused on agency 

missions. 

By resolving matters early, the FLRA saves taxpayers money in other ways. Many cases have 

damages that include backpay (payments for the length of time a person is out of work or 

working at reduced pay). The sooner those matters are adjudicated, the lower the Federal 

Government’s potential liability. A recent settlement between the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) and its union demonstrates how this is so. In that case, the OGC, the VA, and its 

union mediated a case involving wrongful employment actions against nearly 5,000 VA 

employees. With the help of one of the two mediators in the FLRA’s Collaboration and 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (CADRO), the matter was then resolved. A significant 

element of damages in that case was backpay. As a result, delays in processing the case—

including delays because there was insufficient staff to prosecute or mediate the matter—

would have contributed to the amount that VA would have had to pay. 

FLRA dispute resolution methods cost significantly less than litigation and often help to avoid 

future complaints. When alternative dispute resolution techniques, such as mediation, are 

used, the parties learn to better communicate with each other. This means better relations 

between managers and employees, better morale among both, greater employee engagement 

and productivity, and lower employee turnover. Conversely, when the FLRA loses the ability 

to timely issue and process ULP complaints, agencies and unions are more likely to bring their 

disputes to arbitration, which—according to recent Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 

statistics—can cost approximately $7,191.54 per arbitration. The FLRA can resolve those 

disputes for a fraction of that sum. Such benefits make the FLRA a cost-effective investment 

ensuring labor peace among 2.1 million Federal employees.
7

With this in mind, the FLRA’s budget message is simple: the Agency has long passed the point 

where it can do more with less. Without full funding, the FLRA will not be able to adequately 

staff its three major components. The FLRA understands that it will need to adhere to the 

Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The FLRA’s FY 2025 budget takes that into account by not 

seeking to fund additional FTEs, despite the Agency’s strong reliance on staff. For FY 2025, 

the FLRA merely seeks to maintain its current workforce.

However, anything other than a pause on efforts to strengthen the FLRA’s workforce will place 

demands upon the Agency that it will not be able to meet long term. This is so for three

reasons. First, inflationary pressures, including significantly higher labor costs, mean that the 

FLRA will have to cut FTEs or furlough its staff if its budget is funded at less than the full 

request of $32,100,000. This is a major concern because many FLRA components are already 

understaffed. Second, long-term vacancies in PAS leadership are creating backlogs that will 

need to be addressed when those positions are eventually filled. Finally, since the FLRA has 

focused its budget on the most urgent mission-related priorities, resources for other priorities, 

including funding for modernization of its information technology (IT) systems, have been 

scarce. The FLRA can only economize and defer such costs for so long before critical problems 

occur. The FLRA must avoid that. 

The long-term pressure of inflation is the single 

greatest budget challenge that the FLRA faces. The 

FLRA’s budget is particularly sensitive to changes in 

labor costs because roughly 80% of the Agency’s fiscalyear budget is used to fund employee compensation

(salaries and benefits). FLRA funding has essentially 

remained flat for the past two decades even though 

general inflation and employee compensation have 

increased. Required to absorb these rising costs, the 

Agency has had to cut its workforce to adhere to its 

budget. In FY 2004, the FLRA employed 213 FTEs 

with a budget of $29,611,000. In FY 2023, the FLRA 

staffed its three components with a workforce of just 116 FTEs and a budget of $29,400,000. 

Thus—although the Agency’s mission and the scope of its statutory coverage have not 

changed—in FY 2023, the FLRA met its Congressionally-mandated functions with half as 

many employees as it had in FY 2004. The FLRA’s FY 2025 budget of $32,100,000 will not 

fully address its current needs. But it will enable the FLRA to maintain its FY 2023 staff of 

116 FTEs, which will help to stabilize the Agency in the short term. 

In the long run, the FLRA will need additional funding to carry out its mission. FLRA 

components are fighting backlogs resulting from long-term PAS vacancies and increased case 

filings. The OGC provides a prime example of this. Without a PAS General Counsel, the OGC 

cannot file ULP complaints. From November 2017 through March 2021 there was no General 

Counsel or Acting General Counsel and recommendations on pending ULP complaints 

accumulated. When an Acting General Counsel was appointed in March 2021, OGC employees 

sprinted to act on 494 complaint recommendations. Knowing that the Acting General 

Counsel’s term would end in August 2023 (and not knowing when a General Counsel would be 

confirmed), the OGC further prioritized the investigation of pending ULP charges. As a result 

of the OGC’s hard work, between March 2021 and August 2023, the OGC not only cleared out 

the backlog of 494 complaint recommendations, but also authorized an additional 725 

complaints, all of which have been resolved or will need to be litigated.
8

Despite these herculean efforts, the age of pending OGC cases has disproportionately 

increased because of staffing shortages. From 2020 to 2023 there was a 42% increase in case 

filings—but that led to a 62% increase in the caseloads of OGC professionals. Increased 

caseloads among OGC professionals have resulted in a 49% decrease in the number of timely 

OGC dispositions during that time period. The decrease in timely OGC dispositions further 

accelerated during the first quarter of FY 2024. The conclusion that must be drawn from these 

numbers is plain—recent years of budget cuts/austerity have already made it very difficult for 

the OGC to fulfill its Congressionally-mandated function in a timely manner. Moreover, the 

OGC is now back to where it started in March 2021—there is no General Counsel, so ULP 

complaint recommendations are accumulating, creating a backlog. The FLRA hopes that there 

will be a new General Counsel by FY 2025. One of their first tasks will be addressing a 

backlog of complaint recommendations and they will need staff to do that.

The flow of cases through the OGC impacts caseloads throughout the FLRA because the OGC 

litigates cases before the Authority and Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). OALJ is 

currently staffed by only three Administrative Law Judges and two support FTEs, and the 

office is currently scheduled to try between 6-16 ULP cases per week through November 2024. 

It is possible, though not certain, that ripples of the ULP backlog will then flow to the 

Authority, where there is already a developing backlog because of a critical PAS vacancy in the 

FLRA’s Authority component. That component is normally composed of three PAS Members 

who adjudicate cases. For more than a year now, there have only been two Authority 

Members. When the two Members disagree on how a case should be decided, the case must be

held in abeyance, pending the confirmation of a third Member who will serve as the deciding 

vote. There is a nominee for the third Member’s position, and the FLRA very much hopes that 

there will be a new third Authority Member by FY 2025. But again, even if that happens, one 

of the tasks of the new Member will be helping to resolve cases held in abeyance and possible

ULP cases that were delayed because of the General Counsel vacancy. Adequate staffing will 

be required to do that.

Attempting to address current and foreseeable backlogs has prompted the FLRA’s committed 

workforce to work beyond capacity. For example, CADRO, which was responsible for resolving 

the VA case described above, is currently staffed by only two FTEs—both seasoned 

professionals who have worked at an unrelenting pace for over two years to help to resolve the 

flood of ULP cases that have recently come out of the OGC. CADRO resolves 90% of the cases 

that are brought to it. The FLRA has not been able to allocate an additional FTE to that office 

despite its successes and pleas for assistance, because the FLRA does not have the resources. 

If the FLRA could fund a third CADRO FTE, cases would be resolved more swiftly. Without 

the extra position the FLRA is risking losing two incredibly talented FTEs to burnout. 

Finally, the FLRA must make investments in other critical areas. For example, the FLRA has 

been deferring for several years critical investments in its IT systems. This has meant that 

the FLRA’s IT staff must care for aging systems that are increasingly vulnerable to 

cyberattacks. Only the talent of the Agency’s IT staff has enabled the FLRA to avert such a 

disaster thus far, but each year the risk increases. Equally important, the FLRA cannot save 

long-term costs by moving towards more cost-effective and more secure, fully-electronic 

systems. The FLRA’s continuing inability to fund its IT systems thus not only poses

significant cybersecurity risks but also costs taxpayers money in the long run.
9

The FLRA cannot cut further FTEs without jeopardizing its ability to fulfill its mission. 

Maintaining a minimum level of 116 FTEs is imperative. The FLRA will need a budget of

$32,100,000 in FY 2025 in order to do that.

When the FLRA expeditiously and satisfactorily resolves workplace disputes, Federal agencies 

can focus their energies on accomplishing their respective missions. The cost savings and 

mission-related benefits the FLRA brings to the Federal Government as a whole justify the 

decision to fund the FLRA at a level that enables it to maintain its workforce even in the face 

of inflation.

If you have any questions regarding the FLRA’s Congressional Budget Justification, please 

contact Michael Jeffries, Executive Director, at (771) 444-5686 or MJeffries@flra.gov.
10

U.S. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

BACKGROUND AND MISSION

The U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority (the FLRA or the Agency) and its small staff of

116 full-time equivalents (FTEs) are responsible for establishing policies and guidance 

regarding labor-management-relations for 2.1 million non-Postal, Federal employees 

worldwide, approximately 1.2 million (60%) of whom are represented in 2,200 bargaining 

units. The FLRA was created by Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, also known 

as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute).

The Statute protects the rights of Federal employees to form, join, or assist a labor 

organization, or to refrain from such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal. 

Those rights include acting for a labor organization as a representative and, in that capacity, 

presenting the views of the organization. Employees also have the right to engage in collective 

bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by the

employees.

The FLRA’s mission is to exercise leadership in preventing and resolving labor-management 

disputes, giving full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and 

agencies. Although the FLRA is a small agency, accomplishing its mission in an effective and 

efficient manner is key to enabling the Federal Government, as a whole, to adapt to changing 

circumstances; to continue delivering the highest quality services to the American public; and 

to deliver a nimbler, more innovative Federal Government. 

Funds spent on the FLRA also result in cost savings governmentwide. This is because the 

FLRA resolves labor disputes through a combination of: alternative dispute resolution (ADR);

adjudicating arbitration and negotiability appeals; deciding representation (REP) questions 

concerning bargaining-unit determinations and elections; and prosecuting and adjudicating 

unfair labor practices (ULPs). The vast majority of FLRA disputes are resolved before they go 

before its Authority component. Indeed, over 90% of ULPs filed against unions and agencies 

between 2018 and 2021 were resolved without the need for the FLRA’s Office of General 

Counsel (OGC) to issue a complaint. In cases in which the OGC issued a ULP complaint, close 

to 90% were resolved before an administrative trial.

The benefits of using the FLRA’s methods of dispute resolution are enormous. Not only are 

litigation and other costs lower—typically significantly lower—but future complaints are often 

avoided. When ADR techniques, such as mediation, are used, the parties learn to 

communicate better with each other. This means better relations between managers and 

employees, better morale among both, greater employee engagement and productivity, and 

lower employee turnover. Such benefits make the FLRA a cost-effective investment ensuring

labor peace among 2.1 million Federal employees.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The FLRA consists of the Authority, the OGC, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP

or the Panel). The Agency also provides full staff support to two other organizations, the 

Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel and the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board.
11

Organizational Chart
12

The Authority

The Authority, the FLRA’s bipartisan, adjudicatory body is normally composed of three fulltime Members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The 

Members are appointed for fixed, five-year, staggered terms, and the President designates one 

Member to serve as Chairman. The Chairman acts as the Agency’s chief executive and 

administrative officer.

Congress directed the Authority, first and foremost, to “provide leadership in establishing 

policies and guidance” related to the purposes of the Statute. The Authority is specifically 

empowered to resolve disputes over the negotiability of proposals made in collective 

bargaining; resolve exceptions to grievance-arbitration awards; determine whether conduct 

alleged in a complaint constitutes an ULP; and review decisions of Regional Directors in REP

disputes over bargaining-unit determinations and elections. Authority Members appoint 

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to hear and prepare recommended decisions in cases 

involving ULP complaints. The ALJs’ recommended decisions may be appealed to the 

Authority. The Authority also provides training for Federal agencies, unions, and neutrals on 

a variety of topics related to the Statute.

Offices and programs under the Authority’s jurisdiction include the Office of the Executive 

Director, Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), Collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Office (CADRO), Office of Case Intake and Publication (CIP), Office of the Solicitor,

and the Equal Employment Opportunity Program (EEO Program). The Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) is an independent entity within the Authority.

Office of the General Counsel (OGC)

The General Counsel, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, 

has separate and independent responsibilities from the Authority. Under the Statute, the 

General Counsel has sole responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of ULP charges 

and complaints. The General Counsel’s determinations in these matters are final and 

unreviewable. The General Counsel has direct authority over, and responsibility for, all 

employees in the OGC, including those in the FLRA’s Regional Offices.

The General Counsel has a small staff at FLRA Headquarters, located in Washington, D.C. 

Headquarters management provides administrative oversight; develops policies, guidance, 

procedures, and manuals that provide programmatic direction for the Regional Offices; 

provides training and education for the parties; and processes appeals from the Regional 

Offices’ dismissals of ULP charges. Each Regional Office is headed by a Regional Director who 

provides leadership and management expertise for their respective Regions.

The Regional Offices, on behalf of the General Counsel, investigate and resolve alleged ULP 

charges; file and prosecute ULP complaints at trials before an ALJ; effectuate compliance with 

settlement agreements and Authority Orders; and provide training and ADR services. In 

addition, through delegation from the Authority, the Regional Offices investigate and resolve 

REP petitions and conduct secret-ballot elections. All ULP charges and REP petitions are filed

in the Regions.
13

There are five Regional Offices located in Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; 

San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C.

Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP)

FSIP is composed of part-time Presidential appointees who are appointed to fixed, staggered,

five-year terms. FSIP assists in resolving negotiation impasses between Federal agencies and 

labor organizations representing Federal employees that arise from collective-bargaining 

negotiations under the Statute and the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work 

Schedules Act.

AGENCY TRENDS & CHALLENGES

Introduction

The primary challenges facing the FLRA are inflation and understaffing, especially within the 

OGC. Years of FTE cost inflation without a complementary increase in budgets, coupled with 

budget cuts in some years, required staff reduction by restructuring and attrition. Many of 

these cuts and attrition have mainly been borne by the OGC. For example, in 2003, the OGC

had 66 professionals in seven Regional Offices to carry out its mission. By 2023, the OGC had 

only 27 professionals in five Regional Offices—a critical lack of resources.

While the FLRA understands the need to pause restaffing efforts, anything other than a pause 

on those efforts will make it very difficult, now and in the future, for the FLRA to accomplish 

its mission and will decrease the effectiveness of its efforts to bring labor peace to the Federal 

Government. It is imperative, however that the FLRA be funded at the full amount of its FY 

2025 budget request. 
14

Anything less than full funding will have negative impacts not only on the FLRA, but also on 

the budgets and operations of other Federal Government agencies. This is because the FLRA’s

early intervention in cases saves taxpayer money. The FLRA’s strategic use of ADR 

techniques reduces the number of work hours agencies and unions need to expend on resolving 

workplace disputes. Even when ADR processes do not work, effective and efficient processing 

of charges and petitions save money in the long run. Meritless cases are dismissed and 

damages are limited in cases where there is merit. Early adjudication of cases involving 

backpay in particular saves taxpayer money—because the sooner those cases are resolved, the

sooner any potential backpay liability is cut off.

If the FLRA does not have the ability to timely issue and process ULP complaints, agencies 

and unions are more likely to bring their disputes to arbitration, which is more time 

consuming and can cost—according to recent Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 

statistics—approximately $7,191.54 per arbitration. The FLRA can resolve those disputes for 

a fraction of that sum.

When the FLRA expeditiously and satisfactorily resolves workplace disputes, Federal agencies 

can focus their energies on accomplishing their respective missions. Given the cost savings 

and mission-related benefits the FLRA brings to the Federal Government as a whole, the 

FLRA’s budget should be increased—not decreased or held flat.

The FLRA’s FY 2025 budget will provide it with sufficient funding to maintain, not increase,

its current workforce. Again, maintaining the FLRA’s current workforce is crucial because 

over the past 20 years, the FLRA has had to do much more with much less. Consider these 

challenges:

• Funding that failed to keep pace with inflation—actual funding in FY 2004 

($29,611,000) was slightly greater than actual funding in FY 2023 ($29,400,000)

• Significant FTE cuts resulting from inadequate funding—from 213 in FY 2004 to 116 in 

FY 2023, a 46% staff reduction.

• Long-term vacancies in key positions—

o Authority Members

o General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel, including no General Counsel from 

November 2017 to March 2021, and August 2023 to present

Two decades of flat budgets that did not keep pace with inflation have strained the FLRA’s 

ability to accomplish its mission. Each year, the FLRA makes tough choices about where to 

spend its limited budget. Each year the FLRA prioritized spending to maintain its staff. Even 

so, it has had to reduce its number of FTEs. The FLRA long ago learned to live with limited 

employee development training and travel budgets. It regularly delays purchasing needed 

equipment and filling positions (hiring lags). This contributes to several negative outcomes.

When labor and other costs increase without a corresponding increase in the FLRA’s budget,

the FLRA is forced to reduce the only thing over which it has control—its headcount. Funding 

at less than the FLRA’s FY 2025 budget of $32,100,000 will mean that the FLRA may, once 

again, have to reduce its small staff. If that happened, reducing through attrition would be an 

unwelcome “best case” scenario. Reducing through attrition would further weaken the FLRA

and make it, practically, impossible for the FLRA to carry out its mission while also ensuring 

quality, productivity, and timeliness.
15

Cuts to the FLRA’s workforce will result in increased backlogs and delayed case processing 

times across all FLRA components. As referenced above, such backlogs not only affect the 

FLRA—they affect the agencies whose disputes are adjudicated by the FLRA. Unresolved 

labor-management issues mean lingering disputes that distract from workplace missions. 

FLRA backlogs also make it more likely that employees and agencies will turn to costly 

arbitrations in an effort to get their disputes heard more quickly—but less effectively.

One 2018 example demonstrates the effectiveness of FLRA processes. In that dispute, the

FLRA found that the Bureau of Prisons had engaged in wage and hour violations affecting 450 

employees over a nine-year period. Ultimately the FLRA worked to resolve the issue—

resulting in payments to the affected employees. Litigating the claims through arbitration or 

court would have cost the Federal Government substantially more than FLRA processes did. 

Continuing fiscal austerity, however, strains the FLRA’s ability to promptly resolve matters 

such as these.

Equally important, further staff cuts would likely to result in the loss of some of the FLRA’s 

most productive employees as a result of employee burnout. This is because FLRA employees, 

trying to keep pace with increased case filings and backlogs despite decreased staff, have been 

working at an unsustainable rate for several years. Without additional support, even the most 

dedicated staff members may eventually decide that it is healthier to move on rather than 

continue to push a boulder up a mountain.

Finally, budget constraints force the FLRA to make painful decisions between funding for the 

most urgent mission-critical activities and funding for other priorities. For example, the FLRA 

has had to defer significant IT investments in everything from mandated cybersecurity 

improvements to day-to-day IT operations technology. This is a serious concern because the 

prolonged absence of funding for critical administrative infrastructure, such as cybersecurity,

IT equipment, and technology modernization impairs the FLRA’s ability to work efficiently 

and leaves the FLRA vulnerable to cyberthreats. The FLRA has done its best to shuffle

mission priorities and keep mission-critical functions working. But doing so indefinitely puts 

the FLRA at very serious risk. 

FLRA staff will continue to diligently carry out the FLRA’s mission. The effectiveness of their 

hard work, however, depends on full funding in FY 2025.

Office of the General Counsel

The OGC plays a fundamental role in facilitating orderly, efficient, and effective, change 

within the Federal Government. Inadequate staffing interferes with the OGC’s ability to 

promptly investigate and resolve ULP charges and REP petitions. Given the high rate of 

unionization in the Federal Government, workplace change frequently requires collective 

bargaining or a representation proceeding, or both. Indeed, the vast majority of ULP and REP 

cases are filed in response to a management-initiated change in conditions of employment. 

One only need look at the effect of the pandemic on government-wide operations to imagine the 

complex nature of negotiations between agencies and the labor organizations that represent 

their employees. The OGC has highly sought-after expertise on matters related to the Statute

that agencies and labor organizations often lack.

The pace at which the OGC resolves these ULP and REP cases directly affects the pace of 

Government change. The Statute generally requires management to maintain the status quo
16

during negotiations and during the pendency of a representation proceeding. The core purpose 

of the Statute is to promote collective bargaining as a means of fostering improved 

Government operations, employee performance, and quality of work life. Hence, the quality 

and timeliness of OGC case investigations and dispositions, and the extent to which OGC 

agents are able to take full advantage of dispute resolution opportunities, directly impact the 

effectiveness and efficiency of Government change.

Prompt resolution of cases also saves the Federal Government money. Meritless cases are 

swiftly dismissed. Liability in cases with merit is limited. If a case merits the award of 

backpay, quickly adjudicating the case will mean fewer years of backpay because there will be 

less time from the violation to the remedy.

Unfortunately, the OGC is losing ground because its staff have reached the limits of their

ability to do more with less. Instead, diminishing staff resources and increasing caseloads are 

resulting in delays in the issuance of cases and an aging pending caseload. Any cut in OGC 

staff will exacerbate this trend. The problem has not been the productivity of OGC staff, 

which has been nothing short of remarkable during the past two and one-half years. Between 

November 2017 and March 2021, there was no Presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed 

General Counsel and, during that time, no ULP complaints could be issued. When an Acting 

General Counsel was designated in March 2021, there were 494 cases in which complaint 

decisions had to be rendered. From March 2021 through August 2023, the OGC cleared out 

that backlog by resolving the cases through settlement or litigation before the OALJ. 

However, more than simply eliminating the backlog, the OGC investigated newly-filed ULP 

charges and authorized an additional 725 complaints, all of which have been resolved or will 

be litigated. The OGC has trials set before the OALJ through November 2024.

Such achievements could not have been made without a highly-talented workforce of 

professionals, dedicated to the mission of the OGC. The problem has been the amount of work 

that OGC professionals have to do. OGC staffing is at historically low levels. OGC 

professionals have been litigating, and continue to litigate, the largest inherited inventory of 

complaint cases in the history of the OGC—in addition to newly-authorized complaints. This

fact, plus increased ULP and REP case filings, have resulted in caseloads1 that are nearly 

double the number of cases that an OGC professional can sustainably carry.2 In order to 

perform their mission essential functions, the Acting General Counsel deprioritized all other 

work and important work has been delayed.

Higher caseloads have translated to increasing backlogs and decreases in the number of 

timely-issued decisions. For example, from 2020 to 2023 there was a 42% increase in case 

filings, but a 62% increase in OGC professional’s caseloads. Increased caseloads resulted in a 

49% decrease in timely OGC actions during the same period. That trend accelerated in the 

first quarter of FY 2024. During that quarter the OGC issued timely initial ULP decisions in 

1 A “caseload” is the number of ULP and REP cases a professional is assigned to investigate 

and bring to a final action. Investigations often take months of work, gathering evidence and 

obtaining testimony from witnesses, before a final action can be taken by the Regional 

Director, on behalf of the General Counsel. While investigations are occurring and as final 

actions are taken on some cases, more cases are assigned to the professionals on a daily basis.

2 In 2018, the ULP/REP investigatory caseload for the then-42 OGC professionals was 74 cases 

per agent cases per year. In 2023, 27 OGC professionals had caseloads of approximately 104 

cases per agent.
17

only 57% of its cases. It issued timely initial decisions in REP cases in only 63% of its cases. 

The conclusion that must be drawn from these numbers is plain—recent years of budget 

austerity and the inability to hire more staff have already made it difficult for the OGC to 

fulfill its Congressionally-mandated mission in a timely manner.

OGC professionals are working beyond a sustainable capacity. Although they are again doing 

so without a General Counsel, the OGC hopes that officer will be in place in FY 2025. The 

addition of a General Counsel would help to boost the morale of OGC employees and enable 

them to return to a normalized working environment. The OGC will only be able to do that, 

however, if the current OGC workforce is maintained. Cuts to its current workforce will result 

in greater backlogs, and longer delays in resolving cases.

Authority

As discussed above, the Authority is normally composed of three FLRA Members, each of 

whom has a staff. The FLRA Members and their staffs (also known as the Authority 

component) write the decisions interpreting the Statute and resolve cases brought by parties. 

Those decisions have become the body of caselaw that shapes the way that labor law works in 

the Federal Government. It is imperative to continue to fully fund Member offices so that the 

Authority can continue to process cases and carry out other vital functions. 

Over the past few years, in order to address a backlog, the Authority successfully focused most 

of its efforts on reducing the age of cases. In FY 2021, the Authority closed more cases than it 

closed in any of the prior five years. In FY 2022 and FY 2023, the Authority continued that 

trend, ending each year with 100 pending cases—fewer than half of the 217 cases pending at 

the end of FY 2020.

During those years, however, the Authority’s focus on reducing its caseloads prevented it from 

carrying out other vital initiatives. Specifically, the Authority was unable to devote time or 

resources to: implementing much-needed, long-overdue updates to its regulations, including its 

negotiability and procedural regulations; providing training to FLRA parties; and developing 

and updating its training materials and guidance documents, including guidance documents 

that have not been updated in over a decade.

Beginning in FY 2023, the Authority began to undertake some of these initiatives, updating its 

negotiability and certain procedural regulations; forming an agency-wide task force to 

recommend additional regulatory updates; and ramping up training initiatives. The Authority 

was able to do so while continuing to issue decisions at a relatively steady pace.

Since January 2023, however, the Authority’s ability to issue timely decisions has been made 

more difficult by a lack of a full complement of three Members. Although the Members 

continue to agree on most cases (and issue decisions accordingly), they do not agree on every 

case. As of February 29, 2024, the absence of a third Member to “break the tie” had caused 32

cases to go into abeyance. If a new Member is not confirmed expeditiously, this number will 

grow.

Further, due to the FLRA’s existing budgetary constraints, the Authority reduced the number 

of Member-staff-attorney positions by 25% for FY 2024. Assuming that a third Member is 

confirmed soon, and that new case filings remain fairly steady, Authority staff should be able 

to make headway in resolving cases held in abeyance. Continued staffing at FY 2024 levels 
18

may also avoid the development of significant new case backlogs and allow for the issuance of 

decisions in a reasonably timely manner. But to even make it possible for the Authority to 

keep up with its caseload (particularly in light of new ULP cases that may be appealed to the 

Authority after the OALJ renders initial recommended decisions on them), it is crucial that the 

Members be able to keep their current FTEs. 

Anything less than the full budget of $32,100,000 will require the FLRA to cut funds from an 

overstretched budget, probably from its personnel budget. If further cuts are made to Member 

staffs, that will make it difficult for the Authority to render timely decisions to resolve parties’ 

disputes. This could have ripple effects, because unresolved workplace disputes will linger. 

Such lingering unresolved disputes can create distractions that adversely affect the ability of 

agencies and their employees to focus on their missions. Further, failing to fully fund the 

Authority will prevent it from continuing its vital, long-overdue initiatives to update its 

regulations and to ramp up its provision of training, as well as updating its outdated guidance 

materials. Providing up-to-date training and guidance is essential because less-informed 

parties often are more prone to engage in unnecessary, timely, and costly litigation—thereby 

further adding to the Authority’s decisional caseload and impairing government efficiency 

generally. 

In addition to the Member staffs, there are several other offices and programs under the 

Authority’s purview, including the Office of the Executive Director, OALJ, CIP, CADRO, Office 

of the Solicitor, and the EEO Program.

Full funding of these offices enables the FLRA to operate efficiently, effectively, and in 

accordance with appropriate administrative and legal standards. CADRO and OALJ, in 

particular, provide direct mission-related support. The OALJ provides support by issuing 

recommended decisions in ULP cases; CADRO by resolving cases so that they do not need to be 

adjudicated further. Given current austerity measures, the FLRA’s budget will not enable it to 

fund additional FTEs in CADRO or the OALJ—even though both components need additional 

support in light of the exceptionally high number of ULP complaints the OGC issued during 

the two and a half years when it had an Acting General Counsel. However, the FY 2025 

budget will enable the offices to maintain their current staffing levels.

Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ)

During the past year, the OALJ worked on the unprecedented backlog of ULP cases generated 

by the lack of a General Counsel from 2017 until an Acting General Counsel was appointed in 

2021. From that time until the end of the Acting General Counsel’s tenure in August 2023, the 

OGC filed 691 complaints with the OALJ. To meet this demand during the pandemic, the 

OALJ developed a virtual hearing program to conduct trials across the country. The reestablishment of CADRO and the filling a vacancy for a third ALJ, contributed greatly to 

resolving many of the 691 complaints before trial or hearing.

The three ALJs are currently scheduled to try between 6-16 ULP cases per week through 

November 2024. For the next year and a half, the ALJs will regularly receive and act upon

motions in preparation for trials. Their judicial duties and time are completely scheduled. 

The return to in-person hearings requires additional time and expenses for travel. OALJs 

have pending complaints in every part of the world where Federal employees work—from Italy 

to Guam and everywhere in the United States. Holding hearings outside of D.C. requires 

ALJs to travel, and travel entails additional time and expense.
19

ALJs conduct hearings and issue recommended decisions in cases involving alleged ULPs, but 

they also author decisions in cases without conducting hearings based upon preliminary 

matters. In addition, they render recommended decisions involving applications for attorney 

fees filed under the Back Pay Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act.

In recent years, the OALJ has operated on a skeletal staff composed of a single administrative 

support paralegal and a single attorney advisor to conduct and perform legal research in 

complicated cases as well as overseeing the technical aspect of the new virtual-trial processes. 

This, and the dramatic increase in ULP cases, is why in its last three budget requests, the 

OALJ has requested two additional attorney advisors. The FLRA’s FY 2025 budget will not 

enable it to fund additional OALJ FTEs, but it will help the FLRA to avoid cuts that would 

dramatically impair the already stretched OALJ’s ability to function. 

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (CADRO)

CADRO is the FLRA’s highly successful and vitally important Collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution Office. For almost three decades, CADRO has been key to the FLRA’s

mission performance and efficient operation. Like ADR generally, CADRO has earned 

significant bipartisan support. CADRO staff size is already so small, at only two FTEs, that it 

simply cannot withstand the loss of even one FTE. 

CADRO dispute resolution services offer FLRA parties informal, voluntary, and confidential 

ways to successfully resolve negotiability disputes and arbitration exceptions pending before 

the Authority. CADRO is also available to help FLRA parties resolve representation petitions 

and pre-complaint ULP charges. In addition, members of the CADRO staff serve as ULP 

Settlement Officials for the Settlement Judge Program in the FLRA’s OALJ. When 

appropriate, FLRA parties can use CADRO to address related collective bargaining matters 

and other labor-management disputes.

Externally, CADRO-staffed dispute resolution services help other agencies and unions prevent 

complex, sensitive labor disputes from impairing either mission performance or work life 

quality. The services also help to improve essential workplace engagement. Internally, 

CADRO helps make FLRA case processing far more effective and efficient, and helps resolve 

cases in ways that prevent unnecessary litigation and its attendant costs.

During the most recent two-year period, data supports the estimate that parties to FLRA cases 

would have had to wait three to five additional years for their ULP cases to be resolved 

through normal litigation channels. The other alternative would have been for the FLRA to 

spend more than $5 million on additional ALJs and supporting staff to decide the cases that 

were instead resolved with the assistance of CADRO staff. Parties to FLRA cases most likely 

would have had to collectively spend additional millions to litigate cases they instead resolved 

with the assistance of CADRO staff.

In FY 2025 and beyond, CADRO must continue to play a crucial role in accomplishing the 

FLRA’s performance goals of resolving cases and reducing litigation and its attendant costs. 

CADRO will continue to help prevent and reduce case backlogs for the Authority and ALJs. 

The OALJ’s ULP complaint caseload continues to skew the application of CADRO resources 

heavily in that direction. In FY 2025, the OALJ will expect CADRO staff to continue 

conducting settlement conferences in ULP complaint cases so as to prevent ULP complaints 

from becoming unnecessarily backed up waiting for trial. In addition, the Authority will 

expect CADRO staff to continue resolving sensitive arbitration exceptions (appeals) and 
20

complex legal issues in negotiability cases so that Members and their attorneys can adjudicate 

other matters on the Authority’s docket and timely perform other critical functions discussed 

above.

CADRO currently performs its work with two seasoned professionals. But performing the 

essential functions identified in this section is unsustainable with just two CADRO FTEs. 

Those two cannot possibly continue keeping pace with projected requests to resolve ULP 

complaints pending before ALJs, in addition to mediating arbitration exceptions and complex 

negotiability cases containing hundreds of legal disputes pending before the Authority 

Members. Nor have the two FTEs been able to fully satisfy joint agency and union requests 

for training, facilitation, and assistance repairing and improving essential labor-management 

relationships. Moreover, already-reduced Authority staffing, expected Authority caseloads,

and other priorities for Authority staff make it unlikely that non-CADRO staff at the FLRA 

can continue providing the same level of essential support in CADRO cases that they 

historically have provided—particularly given that the FLRA will not be able to fund 

additional FTEs on the Authority Members’ and CIP staffs in FY 2025.

CADRO is the only vehicle through which the FLRA can perform the mission-critical functions 

identified in this section. If the FLRA’s budget does not permit retention of both CADRO 

FTEs, there will be no choice but to stop performing most of these mission-critical functions. 

The FLRA, other agencies, unions, and taxpayers cannot afford such an outcome.

Office of the Executive Director

A major challenge within the Office of the Executive Director is related to inflationary and 

other pressures experienced by the FLRA’s mission-related components. When there are 

funding needs and shortfalls, the FLRA has focused on tightening its small administrative 

budget. Unfortunately, the Agency has reached its breaking point in all areas, including 

administrative functions. The situation on the administrative side, particularly in the area of 

IT investment, is becoming urgent. Critical IT infrastructure and hardware are aging past 

their end-of-life schedule. Full funding of $32,100,000 is necessary to enable the FLRA to 

simply maintain its current systems. 

IT Investment, Cybersecurity, and Modernization

Even full funding of the FLRA’s FY 2025 budget will, unfortunately, mean that the FLRA will 

again defer long overdue IT investments necessary to maintain safe, secure, effective, and 

modern IT systems. In FY 2022 and FY 2023, the FLRA was underfunded and could not afford 

to pay for these needed efforts. At the level of $32,1000,000, the FLRA will again have to defer 

significant IT investments in everything from mandated cybersecurity improvements to dayto-day IT operations technology. This is a problem because the prolonged absence of funding 

for critical administrative infrastructure, such as cybersecurity, IT equipment, and technology 

modernization impairs the FLRA’s ability to work efficiently and leaves the FLRA vulnerable 

to cyberthreats. The FLRA has done its best to shuffle mission priorities and keep missioncritical functions working. But doing so indefinitely puts the FLRA at very serious risk.

Federal Service Impasses Panel

Congress gave FSIP a unique and important task—resolving bargaining impasses. Privatesector employees can strike when they are at impasse with their employers. Federal-sector 
21

employees may not strike. Congress designed FSIP processes to be an alternative to strikes. 

Parties who are at impasse submit their disputes to FSIP. FSIP Members may then use a 

wide variety of tools—from ADR to swift, Solomonic decisions about competing proposals.

In FY 2023, FSIP exceeded all of its timeliness measures for assisting parties in resolving their 

negotiation impasses. Specifically, it issued its decision to decline jurisdiction on cases not 

appropriately before the Panel within 140 days of the date that the parties filed their request 

for assistance in 100% (18/18) of cases. It assisted the parties in achieving voluntary 

settlement within 160 days of the date that the parties filed their requests for assistance in 

100% (18/18) of cases. It issued its final order within 200 days of the date that the parties filed 

their request for assistance in 86% (6/7) of cases.

Although in prior years the Panel received an average of 140 requests for assistance per year 

(averaging close to 11 new filings per month), in 2020, the Panel received 90 filings (an 

average of 8 new filings per month); in 2021 it received 68 filings (an average of 6 new filings 

per month); and in 2022, 92 filings (an average of 8 new filings per month). The trend of an 

average of 8 new cases a month is expected to continue. While either party engaged in the 

collective bargaining process is free to request the Panel’s assistance in bringing closure to the 

collective bargaining process, in FY 2023, the Union was the filing party in 64% of requests 

filed with the Panel. For comparison, in FY 2021, the Agency was the filing party in 54% of 

requests filed with the Panel.

During the past few years, FSIP has received more requests for assistance that involve 

impasses over flexible and compressed work schedules and impasses over where employees 

will perform their work. Over 30% of the requests for assistance in FY 2023 involved work 

schedules because FSIP has sole jurisdiction to resolve the disputes under the Alternative 

Work Schedules Act.

FSIP currently operates with four FTEs who support 10 Presidentially-appointed Special 

Government Employees (SGEs). If the FLRA’s FY 2025 budget is fully funded, FSIP will 

continue to meet its timeliness and productivity goals. 
22

CURRENT SERVICES ESTIMATE

The FLRA is requesting $32,100,000 in 2025 to address its statutory and regulatory 

responsibilities. That amount will allow the FLRA to maintain a workforce of 116 FTEs. 

(In thousands of dollars)
23

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

Appropriations Language

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, 

pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 

1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and including hire of experts and 

consultants, hire of passenger motor vehicles, and including official reception and 

representation expenses (not to exceed $1,500) and rental of conference rooms in the District of 

Columbia and elsewhere, $32,100,000, of which $1,075,563 will be made available to support 

the Office of the Inspector General’s anticipated operating expenses: Provided, That public 

Members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may be paid travel expenses and per diem in 

lieu of subsistence as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed intermittently in 

the Government service, and compensation as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, 

That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees charged to non-Federal 

participants at labor-management relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with 

this account, to be available without further appropriation for the costs of carrying out these 

conferences.

Note.—A full-year 2024 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the Budget 

was prepared; therefore, the Budget assumes this account is operating under the Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2024 and Other Extensions Act (Division A of Public Law 118–15, as 

amended). The amounts included for 2024 reflect the annualized level provided by the 

continuing resolution. 

2025 Funding Request $32,100,000

The FY 2025 budget for the U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority in the amount of 

$32,100,000 is necessary to meet statutory and regulatory responsibilities. The Agency’s FY 

2025 request will fund 116 FTEs, including its continued funding for 3 FTEs for its Office of 

Inspector General.
24

(In thousands of dollars)

Program and Financing Schedule

(In thousands of dollars)
25

Object Classification Schedule

(In thousands of dollars)

Employment Summary Schedule
26

Inspector General Resources

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provides independent and objective assessments of 

the FLRA’s efficiency, effectiveness, and compliance with laws and regulations. This is 

accomplished through proactive evaluations of Agency operational processes. In addition to 

striving to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse of the FLRA’s resources and operations, 

a key goal of the Inspector General (IG) is to serve as a catalyst for improving operations and 

maximizing the efficiency and integrity of Agency programs.

In fulfilling these responsibilities and objectives, the IG conducts and supervises 

investigations, internal reviews, audits, and evaluations of the programs and operations of the 

Agency. The IG communicates the results of investigations and assessments to FLRA 

management, Congress, other oversight entities, and the public, as appropriate. Generally, 

the IG communicates results in formal reports that contain findings and recommendations 

aimed at correcting any deficiencies identified and promoting efficiency and effectiveness in 

Agency programs and operations. The IG also manages a hotline to provide employees and the 

public with a direct means for confidentially communicating information on potential fraud, 

waste, or abuse.

Resources for the OIG in the FLRA’s FY 2025 Request

The FLRA’s FY 2025 funding request includes $1,075,563 for the OIG, fully funding the OIG’s 

FY 2025 request, and the Agency’s appropriations language expressly allocates funding for the 

OIG at this level. The IG’s Budget Request for FY 2024 was $1,059,609. 

The OIG’s request includes $10,000 for training and $4,286 to support the Council of the 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The IG has certified that the FLRA’s funding 

request for the OIG satisfies all training requirements for FY 2025.

The FY 2025 request would also maintain the OIG staffing level from FY 2024. In FY 2024,

after the Department of the Treasury discontinued a counsel-sharing arrangement that had 

been providing the FLRA OIG with part-time legal counsel since FY 2010, FLRA allocated an 

additional FTE to the OIG (resulting in a total of 3 FTE in OIG), to provide the IG with fulltime, permanent legal counsel in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, Section 

3(g) (IG Act) (5 U.S.C. §403(g)). The additional attorney position will help the OIG function 

more effectively and independently. The IG had requested the additional FTE in the three 

previous fiscal years, beginning in FY 2021, but FLRA budget constraints had prevented the 

allocation. The FLRA’s request funds 3 FTEs for OIG in FY 2025 to maintain the expected FY 

2024 FTE level, including the attorney position meeting the IG Act’s requirements. 
27

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001

September 5, 2023

CRITICAL INDEPENDENCE ISSUE STEMMING FROM THE FEDERAL LABOR 

RELATIONS AUTHORITY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RESOURCES 

COMBINED INTO A SINGLE APPROPRIATION WITH THE AGENCY 

The Federal Labor Relations Authority Inspector General (FLRA IG) is a Designated Federal Entity 

(DFE) appointed by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (Authority or FLRA). Unlike most 

presidentially appointed Inspector General’s (IG) who receive separate appropriations from their 

agency, the FLRA OIG’s resources are included in the agency’s appropriation. This leaves the 

allocation of resources to the discretion of the agency which can allow the agency to limit the 

oversight capabilities of the OIG. This creates a critical independence issue.

In 2008, the Inspector General Reform Act (Pub. L. 110-149) was passed and included specific 

requirements concerning OIG budget submissions each fiscal year (FY).

Each IG is required to transmit a budget request to the head of the establishment or designated 

Federal entity to which the IG reports specifying: (1) the aggregate amount of funds requested for 

the operations of the OIG; (2) the portion of this amount requested for OIG training, including a 

certification from the IG that the amount requested satisfies all OIG training requirements for the 

FY; and (3) the portion of this amount necessary to support the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).

The President shall include in each budget of the U.S. Government submitted to Congress: (1) a 

separate statement of the budget estimate submitted by each IG; (2) the amount requested by the 

President for each OIG; (3) the amount requested by the President for training of OIGs; (4) the 

amount requested by the President for support of the CIGIE; and (5) any comments of the affected 

IG with respect to the proposal if the IG concludes that the budget submitted by the President would 

substantially inhibit the IG from performing duties of the OIG.

The additional budget specifications required by the Inspector General Reform Act (IG Reform Act) 

amendments may work for some DFE’s whose agencies give them their full request. However, 

when agencies do not receive their request, the shortfalls included in a single appropriation may 

impact the OIG. This scenario is currently playing out at the FLRA. Since 2021, the OIG has been 

requesting one attorney position to fill the congressionally mandated requirement of legal counsel 

reporting to the IG and to provide oversight of the integrity of the FLRA through investigative 

activities. Each year, this resource has been declined by the agency which puts both the agency and 

IG at risk because the OIG is unable to conduct investigations and consult with legal counsel. 

To correct this critical independence issue, the FLRA OIG requests the President and appropriators 

identify what resources included in the FLRA’s appropriations are intended for the OIG.

INSPECTOR GENERAL
28

Following the requirements of the IG Reform Act as specified above, the FLRA IG submits the 

following information relating to the OIG’s requested budget for FY 2025:

• The aggregate budget request for the operations of the OIG is $1,075,563

• The portion of this amount needed for OIG training is $10,000; and

• The portion of this amount needed to support the CIGIE is $4,286.

I certify as the IG of the FLRA that the amount I have requested for training satisfies all OIG training 

needs for FY 2025.

Inspector General

Federal Labor Relations Authority
29

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

The FLRA organizes its Strategic Plan by three Strategic Goals. Each Strategic Goal has a 

number of Strategic Objectives. Each Strategic Objective has a number of Performance Goals 

with unique and trackable measures, which are used to determine the Agency’s progress. This 

section outlines the Agency’s performance goals and results across a 5-year period.

FLRA Strategic Goals

Strategic Goal #1 Strategic Goal #2 Strategic Goal #3

We will resolve disputes 

under the Federal Service 

Labor-Management Relations 

Statute in a timely, highquality, and impartial 

manner.

We will promote stability in the 

Federal labor-management 

community by providing 

leadership and guidance 

through Alternative Dispute 

Resolution and education.

We will manage our resources 

effectively and efficiently in 

order to achieve organizational 

excellence.

Strategic Objectives

1.1. Achieve or exceed caseresolution timeliness 

measures, as established by 

each component.

2.1. Offer high-quality outreach 

and prevention services, as 

well as reference resources, 

to promote more effective 

labor-management relations 

across the Federal 

Government.

3.1. Recruit, retain, and 

develop a highly talented, 

motivated, and diverse 

workforce to accomplish the 

FLRA’s mission.

1.2. Set a high standard of 

quality for the caseresolution process.

2.2. Maximize the use of 

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution practices in case 

resolution.

3.2. Improve usage of existing 

technology and deploy new 

IT systems to streamline and 

enhance organizational 

operations.

3.3. Act as an effective steward 

of agency resources.

2022-2026 STRATEGIC PLAN PERFORMANCE GOALS

Performance Goal 1.1.1: Timely investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate each case type 

(ULP, REP, ARB, NEG, IMPASSE)

Performance Goal 1.1.2: Resolve overage cases in a timely fashion

Performance Goal 1.2.1: Develop a mechanism for soliciting external feedback on the 

FLRA case-resolution process

Performance Goal 1.2.2: Score highly on internal quality reviews regarding the caseresolution process
30

Performance Goal 2.1.1: Provide targeted training, outreach and prevention, and 

facilitation activities within the labor-management community.

Performance Goal 2.1.2: Provide effective, useful, up-to-date case-processing and case-law 

resources and trainings for the labor-management community.

Performance Goal 2.2.1: Successful resolution of a significant portion of FLRA cases 

through ADR.

Performance Goal 2.2.2: Expanded use of ADR in ARB cases.

Performance Goal 2.2.3: Examination of potential expanded use of ADR in REP cases.

Performance Goal 3.1.1: Demonstrate strong recruitment and retention practices.

Performance Goal 3.1.2: Maintain and grow agency expertise through employee 

development.

Performance Goal 3.1.3: Develop internal tools and benchmarks for skills assessment, 

training-needs assessment, and effective succession planning.

Performance Goal 3.2.1: Improve eFiling capability and maximize its use in receiving case 

filings.

Performance Goal 3.2.2: Enhance employee technology usage and skills at every level.

Performance Goal 3.3.1: Achieve high internal customer-service scores on delivery of 

administrative services.

Performance Goal 3.3.2: Meet or exceed established operational measures.

Performance Goal 3.3.3: Be a leader in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and in 

the “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” rankings.

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: WE WILL RESOLVE DISPUTES UNDER THE FEDERAL 

SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE IN A TIMELY, HIGHQUALITY, AND IMPARTIAL MANNER

PERFORMANCE GOAL 1.1.1: TIMELY INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE, AND 

ADJUDICATE EACH CASE TYPE (ULP, REP, ARB, NEG, IMPASSE).

PERFORMANCE GOAL 1.1.2: RESOLVE OVERAGE CASES IN A TIMELY FASHION.

Representation cases

The Statute sets out a specific procedure for employees to petition to be represented by a labor 

union and to determine which employees will be included in a “bargaining unit” that a union 

represents. Implementing this procedure, the OGC, on behalf of the Authority, conducts 

secret-ballot elections for union representation and resolves a variety of issues related to 

questions of union representation of employees. These issues include, for example, whether 

particular employees are managers or “confidential” employees excluded from union 

representation, whether there has been election misconduct on the part of agencies or unions, 

and whether changes in union and agency organizations affect existing bargaining units. 

Representation cases are initiated when an individual, a labor organization, or an agency files 

a petition with a Regional Office. After a petition is filed, the Regional Director conducts an 

investigation, which may include holding a hearing to determine the appropriateness of a unit 

or other matter related to the petition. After concluding such investigation, the Regional 
31

Director may conduct a secret-ballot election or issue a Decision and Order, which is final 

unless an application for review (appeal) is filed with the Authority. The Authority resolves 

appeals to the Decision and Orders of the Regional Directors and these Authority decisions set 

legal precedent on the meaning and operation of the Statute in the representation context.

Unfair Labor Practice cases

The General Counsel has independent responsibility for the investigation, settlement, and 

prosecution, of ULP charges. ULP cases originate with the filing of an unfair labor practice 

charge in a Regional Office by an employee, a labor organization, or an agency. Once a charge 

has been filed, the Regional Office will investigate the charge to determine whether it has 

merit. If the Regional Director determines that the charge has merit, then the Regional 

Director will, absent settlement, issue and prosecute a complaint before an ALJ. If the 

Regional Director determines that the charge lacks merit, then the charging party is entitled 

to a written explanation, and, if not satisfied, may appeal that decision to the General Counsel 

in Washington, D.C. If the General Counsel upholds the dismissal, then the case is closed. 

The Authority has appointed ALJs to hear ULP cases prosecuted by the General Counsel. The 

OALJ transmits recommended decisions of the ALJs to the Authority, which may affirm, 

modify, or reverse the ALJs in whole or in part on exceptions (appeal). Authority decisions set 

legal precedent on the meaning, operation, and enforcement of the Statute. If no exceptions 

are filed to an ALJ’s recommended decision, then the Authority adopts the recommended 

decision without precedential significance.

Arbitration cases

The Statute requires that collective-bargaining agreements between agencies and unions 

include negotiated grievance procedures that provide for binding arbitration of grievances. 

Either party to grievance arbitration may file with the Authority an “exception” to (an appeal 

of) an arbitrator’s award. The Authority will review an arbitrator’s award to which an 

exception has been filed to determine whether the award is deficient because it is contrary to 

any law, rule, or regulation, or on grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in 

private-sector, labor-management relations. After the Authority issues a decision that 

resolves exceptions to an arbitration award, or no exceptions (or procedurally sufficient 

exceptions) are filed, the arbitration award becomes final and binding, and a party’s refusal to 

comply with the award may be a ULP.

Negotiability cases

A primary responsibility of the Authority under the Statute is to resolve “negotiability” 

appeals. A Federal agency bargaining with a union may claim that a particular union 

proposal cannot be bargained because it conflicts with Federal law, a Government-wide rule or 

regulation, or an agency regulation for which there is a compelling need. In addition, agency 

heads may disapprove collective-bargaining agreements if those agreements are contrary to 

law. In both of these situations, a union may petition the Authority to resolve the negotiability 

dispute. The Authority’s decisions in negotiability disputes set legal precedent on the meaning 

and operation of the Statute, and may be appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals.
32

Bargaining-Impasse cases

In carrying out the right to bargain collectively, on occasion union representatives and Federal

agencies fail to reach agreement on issues; the bargaining reaches an impasse. Several 

options are available by which the parties may attempt to resolve the impasse. The parties 

may: decide, on their own, to use certain techniques to resolve the impasse, but may proceed to 

private, binding arbitration only after the FSIP approves the procedure; seek the services and 

assistance of third-party mediation such as the FMCS; or seek the assistance of the FSIP in 

resolving the negotiation impasse, after the assistance of third-party mediation has failed.

Authority

Arbitration Cases 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 146 121 76 80 63

Exceptions filed (Intake) 118 81 75 91* 822

Total caseload 264 202 151 171 145

Cases closed procedurally 23 22 8 15 13

Cases closed based on merits 120 104 63 93 96

Total cases closed (Output)3 143 126 71 108 109

Cases pending, end of year 121 76 80 63 36

*Estimate based on three-year average from 2021-2023. 2Estimate based on average of 2022, 2023, and estimated average 2024.

3Estimated output assumes a full complement of Members and full staffing in the Member offices, CIP, and 

CADRO. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

146

121

76 80 63

118

81

75

91

82

Total Arbitra�on Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Excep�ons Filed
33

Measure 1.1.1a (Previously 1.1.1): The average age of arbitration exceptions 

decided by the Authority. 

Results Targets

2021 395 days

Not Met 2021 248 days

2022 405 days

Not Met 2022 375 days

2023 299 days

Met 2023 385 days

2024 284 days

2025 270 days

Measure 1.1.1b (New): The average age of arbitration cases pending before the 

Authority.

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 268 days

Met 2023 268 days

2024 255 days

2025 242 days

Measure 1.1.1c (Previously 1.1.2): The percentage of arbitration cases 

decided by the Authority within 210 days of the filing of exceptions.

Results Targets

2021 29% - (42/143 cases)

Not Met 2021 75%

2022 23% - (32/126 cases)

Not Met 2022 75%

2023 N/A* 2023 N/A *Measure not in effect in FY 2023. 2024 N/A

2025 N/A

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

23 22 8 15 13

120 104

63

93 96

Total Arbitra�on Cases Closed

Cases closed procedurally Cases closed based on merits
34

Measure 1.1.1d (New): The percentage of arbitration cases decided by the 

Authority within 210 days of assignment to a Member office.

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 58% - (35/60 cases)

Met 2023 50%

2024 50%

2025 50%

Authority

Negotiability Cases 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 65 34 20 16 13

Petitions filed (Intake) 48 53 49 50* 502

Total caseload 113 87 69 66 63

Cases closed procedurally 43 57 46 38 38

Cases closed based on merits 36 10 7 15 15

Total cases closed (Output)3 79 67 53 53 53

Cases pending, end of year 34 20 16 13 10

*Estimate based on three-year average from 2021-2023. 2Estimate based on average of 2022, 2023, and estimated average 2024. 3Estimated output assumes a full complement of Members and full staffing in the Member offices, CIP, and 

CADRO

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2021 2022 2023 2024 est. 2025 est.

65

34

20 16 13

48

53

49 50 50

Total Nego�ability Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Pe��ons filed
35

Measure 1.1.1e (Previously 1.1.3): The average age of negotiability cases 

decided by the Authority.

Results Targets

2021 235 days

Not Met 2021 161 days

2022 247 days

Not Met 2022 223 days

2023 132 days

Met 2023 235 days

2024 125 days

2025 119 days

Measure 1.1.1f (New): The average age of negotiability cases pending before 

the Authority.*

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 211 days

Met 2023 250 days

*Measured at the end of the fiscal year. 2024 200 days

2025 190 days

Authority

ULP Cases 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025 

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 3 2 2 1 0

Cases filed (Intake) 4 11 12 12 12

Total caseload 7 13 14 13 12

Cases closed procedurally 1 9 11 8 9

Cases closed based on merits 4 2 2 5 3

Total cases closed (Output)* 5 11 13 13 12

Cases pending, end of year 2 2 1 0 0

*Estimated output assumes a full complement of Members and full staffing in the Member offices, CIP, and CADRO

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2021 2022 2023 2024 est. 2025 est.

43

57

46 38 38

36 10

7 15 15

Total Nego�ability Cases Closed

Cases closed procedurally Cases closed based on merits
36

Measure 1.1.1g (Previously 1.1.5): The average age of ULP exceptions 

decided by the Authority.

Results Targets

2021 554 days

Not Met 2021 226 days

2022 105 days

Met 2022 526 days

2023 90 days

Met 2023 100 days

2024 85 days

2025 81 days

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

3 2 2 1 0

4

11 12

12

12

Total Authority ULP Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Excep�ons filed (Intake)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

1

9

11

8 9

4

2

2

5 3

Total Authority ULP Cases Closed

Cases closed procedurally Cases closed based on merits
37

Measure 1.1.1h (New): The average age of ULP cases pending before the 

Authority.*

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 3 days

Met 2022 150 days

*Measured at the end of the fiscal year. 2024 142 days

2025 135 days

Measure 1.1.1i (Previously 1.1.6): The percentage of ULP cases decided by 

the Authority within 300 days of issuance of an OALJ decision.

Results Targets

2021 40% – (2/5 cases)

Not Met 2021 75%

2022 100% – (11/11 cases)

Met 2022 75%

2023 N/A* 2023 N/A

*Measure not in effect in FY 2023. 2024 N/A

2025 N/A

Measure 1.1.1j (New): The percentage of ULP cases decided or otherwise 

resolved by the Authority within 300 days of assignment to a Member office.

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 100% – (2/2 cases)

Met 2023 75%

2024 75%

2025 75%

Authority

Representation Cases 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 4 3 2 4 3

Applications for review (Intake) 3 5 7 5 6

Total caseload 7 8 9 9 9

Cases closed procedurally 0 1 0 0 0

Cases closed based on merits 4 5 5 6 6

Total cases closed (Output)* 4 6 5 6 6

Cases pending, end of year 3 2 4 3 3

*Estimated output assumes a full complement of Members and full staffing in the Member offices, CIP, and CADRO
38

Measure 1.1.1k (Previously 1.1.7): The average age of representation cases 

decided by the Authority.

Results Targets

2021 225 days

Not Met 2021 184 days

2022 119 days

Met 2022 214 days

2023 90 days

Met 2023 100 days

2024 85 days

2025 81 days

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

4

3

2

4

3

3 5 7

5

6

Total Authority Representa�on Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Applica�ons for review

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

0

1

0 0 0

4

5

5

6 6

Total Authority Representa�onCases Closed

Cases closed procedurally Cases closed based on merits
39

Measure 1.1.1l (New): The average age of representation cases pending 

before the Authority.*

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 53 days

Met 2023 86 days

*Measured at the end of the fiscal year. 2024 50 days

2025 47 days

Measure 1.1.1m (Previously 1.1.8): The percentage of representation cases 

in which the Authority issued a decision whether to grant review within 60 

days of the filing of an application for review.

Results Targets

2021 100% – (4/4 cases)

Met 2021 100%

2022 100% – (6/6 cases)

Met 2022 100%

2023 100% – (5/5 cases)

Met 2023 100%

2024 100%

2025 100%

Measure 1.1.1n (Previously 1.1.9): The percentage of representation cases 

decided by the Authority within 210 days of the filing of an application for 

review.

Results Targets

2021 75% – (3/4 cases)

Met 2021 75%

2022 83% – (5/6 cases)

Met 2022 75%

2023 N/A* 2023 N/A *Measure not in effect in FY 2023. 2024 N/A

2025 N/A

Measure 1.1.1o (New): The percentage of representation cases decided or 

otherwise resolved by the Authority within 210 days of assignment to a 

Member office.

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 80% - (4/5 cases)

Met 2023 75%

2024 75%

2025 75%
40

OALJ

ULP Cases 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 0 103 115 213 134

Complaints received (Intake) 130 134 423 125 125

Total caseload 130 237 538 338 259

Settlements before hearing 0 95 311 169 129

Cases closed by decision 27 27 14 35 45

Total cases closed (Output) 27 122 325 204 174

Cases pending, end of year 103 115 213 134 85

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

0

103 115

213

130 134

134

423

125

125

Total OALJ ULP Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Cases received from the OGC

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

0

95

311

169

129

27

27

14

35

45

Total OALJ ULP Cases Closed

Se�lements before hearing Cases closed by decision
41

Measure 1.1.1p (Previously 1.1.10): The median age of ULP complaints 

decided by the OALJ. *

Results Targets

2021 69 days

Met 2021 124 days

2022 71 days

Met 2022 124 days

2023 60 days

Met 2023 124 days

*OALJ performance standards remain to resolve 80% of 

ULP complaints within 180 days of filing and 95%

within 365 days.

2024 124 days

2025 124 days

Measure 1.1.1q (Previously 1.1.11): The percentage of ULP complaints 

issued by the General Counsel resolved or decided in the OALJ within 180 days 

of the complaint being issued. *

Results Targets

2021 100% – (2/2 cases)

Met 2021 80%

2022 100% – (27/27 cases)

Met 2022 80%

2023 100% – (256/256 cases)

Met 2023 80%

*OALJ performance standards remain to resolve 80% of 

ULP complaints within 180 days of filing and 95%

within 365 days.

2024 80%

2025 80%

OGC

ULP Cases 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 903 1031 1295 1112 1401

Charges filed (Intake) 2471 2917 2641 2785 2785

Total caseload 3374 3948 3936 3897 4186

Charges withdrawn/settled 1850 2103 1950 1968 1968

Charges dismissed 363 416 447 403 403

Complaints issued1 130 134 427 1252 1252

Total cases closed (Output)* 2343 2653 2824 24963 24963

Cases pending, end of year3 1031 1295 1112 1401 1690

* Based on OGC FTE 27 in FY 2021-FY 2025. 1 The OGC was unable to issue complaints in the absence of a General Counsel from November 17, 2017, until an Acting 

General Counsel was designated on March 23, 2021. 2 The OGC is currently without a General Counsel or Acting General Counsel. The estimates for complaints are 

assuming a confirmed General Counsel is in place within that FY. 3 Although currently without a General Counsel, the OGC will be litigating, through November 2024, those cases where 

complaint issued by August 1, 2023, and have not settled – currently at 242.
42

Measure 1.1.1r (Previously 1.1.12): The percentage of ULP charges resolved 

by the Office of the General Counsel by complaint, withdrawal, dismissal, or 

settlement within 120 days of filing of the charge.

Results Targets

2021 94% – (2208/2343 cases)

Met 2021 70%

2022 85% – (2245/2653 cases)

Met 2022 70%

2023 72% – (2027/2826 cases)

Not Met 2023 70%

2024 70%

2025 70%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

903 1,031 1,295 1,112 1,401

2,471

2,917 2,641 2,785

2,785

Total OGC ULP Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Charges filed

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

1,850

2,103 1,950 1,968 1,968

363

416

447 403 403

130

134 427

125 125

Total OGC ULP Cases Closed

Charges withdrawn/se�led Charges dismissed Complaints issued
43

Measure 1.1.2i (Previously 1.2.11): The percentage of ULP charges resolved 

by the OGC by complaint, withdrawal, dismissal, or settlement within 240 days 

of filing of the charge.

Results Targets

2021 99.8% (2338/2343 cases)

Met 2021 95%

2022 98.6% (2616/2653 cases)

Met 2022 95%

2023 93% (2627/2826 cases)

Not Met 2023 95%

2024 95%

2025 95%

OGC

Representation Cases 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 38 48 82 81 102

Petitions filed (Intake) 135 201 192 182 182

Total caseload 173 249 274 263 284

Petitions withdrawn 42 80 70 66 66

Cases closed based on merits 83 87 123 95 95

Total cases closed (Output)* 125 167 193 161 161

Cases pending, end of year 48 82 81 102 123

*Based on OGC average FTE 27 average in FY 2021-25.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

38 48

82 81 102

135

201

192 182

182

Total Representa�on Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Pe��ons filed
44

Measure 1.1.1t (Previously 1.1.14): The percentage of representation cases 

resolved by the OGC through withdrawal, election, or issuance of a Decision 

and Order within 120 days of the filing of a petition.

Results Targets

2021 77% (96/125 cases)

Met 2021 70%

2022 74% (122/167 cases)

Met 2022 70%

2023 59% (113/193 cases)

Not Met 2023 70%

2024 70%

2025 70%

Measure 1.1.2j (Previously 1.2.12): The percentage of representation cases 

resolved by the OGC through withdrawal, election, or issuance of a Decision 

and Order within 365 days of the filing of a petition.

Results Targets

2021 100% (125/125 cases)

Met 2021 95%

2022 97% (161/167 cases)

Met 2022 95%

2023 96% (185/193 cases)

Met 2023 95%

2024 95%

2025 95%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

42

80 70 66 66

83

87

123

95 95

Total Representa�onCases Closed

Pe��ons withdrawn Cases closed based on merits
45

OGC

ULP Appeals 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Appeals pending, start of year 407 396 366 399 447

Appeals filed (Intake) 70 118 113 98 98

Total caseload 477 514 479 497 545

Appeals closed (Output)* 81 148 80 501 501

Appeals pending, end of year 396 366 399 447 495

*The OGC was unable to issue decisions on appeals in the absence of a General Counsel, except where a 

jurisdictional issue is presented, from November 17, 2017, until an Acting General Counsel was designated on 

March 23, 2021. 1 The OGC is currently without a General Counsel or Acting General Counsel. The estimates for appeals are 

assuming a confirmed General Counsel is in place within that FY.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

407 396 366 399

447

70 118

113

98

98

Total OGC Appeals Caseload

Appeals pending, start of year Appeals filed (Intake)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

81

148

80

50 50

Total OGC Appeals Closed

Appeals closed (Output)
46

Measure 1.1.1s (Previously 1.1.13): The percentage of decisions on an appeal 

of a Regional Director’s dismissal of a ULP charge issued by the General Counsel 

within 60 days of the date filed, and in no case more than 120 days. 

Results Targets

2021 100% (81/81) 2021 95%

2022 100% (148/148) 2022 95%

2023 100% (80/80) 2023 95%

2024 95%

FSIP

Impasses 2021 2022 2023 2024Est.

2025

Est.

Cases pending, start of year 22 45 16 17 11

Impasses filed (Intake) 68 92 84 90 90

Total caseload 90 137 100 107 101

Panel Decision 21 15 11 * *

Panel declined jurisdiction 4 29 23 * *

Settled with Panel assistance 2 38 17 * *

Voluntarily withdrawn 18 39 32 * *

Cases closed total (Output) 45 121 83 96* 96*

Cases pending, end of year 45 16 17 11* 5*

*The FSIP anticipates closing as many or more cases as are filed in any given year. The means by which cases 

are closed is driven by the parties and directive of the Panel. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

22

45

16 17 11

68

92

84 90 90

Total Impasse Caseload

Cases pending, start of year Impasses filed (Intake)
47

Measure 1.1.1x (New): CIP will assign the case to a Member office within 5 

days of the due date for a final filing (regardless of whether such a filing has 

been received).

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 100%

Met 2023 75%

2024 75%

2025 75%

Measure 1.1.1y (New): CIP will assign the case to a Member office within 21 

days of due date of final filing.

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 100%

Met 2023 100%

2024 100%

2025 100%

Measure 1.1.2a (Previously 1.2.1): The percentage of arbitration exceptions 

decided by the Authority within 365 days of the filing of exceptions.

Results Targets

2021 49% – (70/143 cases)

Not Met 2021 90%

2022 56% – (70/126 cases)

Not Met 2022 90%

2023 N/A* 2023 N/A *Measure not in effect in FY 2023. 2024 N/A

2025 N/A

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. 2025 Est.

45

121

83

96 96

Total Impasse Cases Closed

Cases closed
48

Measure 1.1.2b (New): The percentage of arbitration exceptions decided or 

otherwise resolved by the Authority within 365 days of assignment to a Member 

office.

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 81% - (54/71 cases)

Met 2023 75%

2024 75%

2025 75%

Measure 1.1.2c (Previously 1.2.2): The percentage of negotiability cases 

decided or otherwise resolved by the Authority within 365 days of the filing of a 

petition for review.

Results Targets

2021 86% – (68/79 cases)

Met 2021 75%

2022 75% – (50/67 cases)

Met 2022 75%

2023 89% – (47/53 cases)

Met 2023 75%

2024 75%

2025 75%

Measure 1.1.2d (Previously 1.2.3): The percentage of ULP cases decided by 

the Authority within 365 days of issuance of an OALJ decision.

Results Targets

2021 40% – 2/5 cases)

Not Met 2021 90%

2022 100% – 11/11 cases)

Met 2022 90%

2023 N/A* 2023 N/A *Measure not in effect in FY 2023. 2024 N/A

2025 N/A

Measure 1.1.2e (New): The percentage of ULP cases decided or otherwise 

resolved by the Authority within 365 days of assignment to a Member office.

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 100% – (2/2 cases)

Met 2023 90%

2024 90%

2025 90%
49

Measure 1.1.2f (Previously 1.2.4): The percentage of representation cases 

decided by the Authority within 365 days of the filing of an application for 

review.

Results Targets

2021 75% – (3/4 cases)

Not Met 2021 100%

2022 83% – (5/6 cases)

Not Met 2022 100%

2023 N/A* 2023 N/A *Measure not in effect in FY 2023. 2024 N/A

2025 N/A

Measure 1.1.2g (New): The percentage of representation cases decided or 

otherwise resolved by the Authority within 365 days of assignment to a Member 

office. 

Results Targets

2022 N/A 2022 N/A

2023 100% – (5/5 cases)

Met 2023 90%

2024 90%

2025 90%

Measure 1.1.2h (Previously 1.2.10): The percentage of ULP complaints 

issued by the General Counsel decided in the OALJ within 365 days of the 

complaint being issued. *

Results Targets

2021 100% – (2/2 cases)

Met 2021 95%

2022 100% – (27/27 cases)

Met 2022 95%

2023 100% – (199/200 cases)

Met 2023 95%

*OALJ performance standards remain to resolve 80% of 

ULP complaints within 180 days of filing and 95%

within 365 days.

2024 95%

2025 95%

Measure 1.1.2k (Previously 1.2.13): The percentage of bargaining-impasse 

cases in which the FSIP declines jurisdiction within 140 days of the date filed.

Results Targets

2021 100% - (4/4 cases)

Met 2021 90%

2022 100% - (29/29 cases)

Met 2022 90%

2023 100% - (18/18 cases)

Met 2023 90%

2024 90%

2025 90%
50

Measure 1.1.2l (Previously 1.2.14): The percentage of bargaining-impasse 

cases that are voluntarily settled within 160 days of the date filed.

Results Targets

2021 100% – (2/2 cases)

Met 2021 80%

2022 100% – (38/38 cases)

Met 2022 80%

2023 100% – (18/18 cases)

Met 2023 80%

2024 80%

2025 80%

Measure 1.1.2m (Previously 1.2.15): The percentage of bargaining-impasse 

cases that the FSIP resolves through final action that are closed within 200 days 

of the date filed.

Results Targets

2021 95% – (20/21 cases)

Met 2021 80%

2022 100% – (15/15 cases)

Met 2022 80%

2023 86%– (6/7 cases)

Met 2023 80%

2024 80%

2025 80%

STRATEGIC GOAL 2: WE WILL PROMOTE STABILITY IN THE FEDERAL LABORMANAGEMENT COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING LEADERSHIP AND GUIDANCE 

THROUGH ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND EDUCATION

Key to the FLRA’s strategic objectives is to offer high-quality mediation, settlement 

conferences, outreach and prevention services as well as resources to promote more effective 

labor-management relations across the Federal Government. ADR is a collection of tools that 

provide informal conflict prevention, management, and resolution. These tools allow parties to 

discuss and develop their interests in order to resolve the underlying issues and problems in 

their labor-management relationships. The FLRA utilizes interest-based conflict resolution 

and intervention services in pending ULP cases, representation cases, arbitration cases, 

negotiability appeals, and bargaining-impasse disputes.

The FLRA also provides facilitation and training to help labor and management develop 

constructive relationships capable of solving difficult problems and making mission-critical

decisions.

PERFORMANCE GOAL 2.1.1: PROVIDE TARGETED TRAINING, OUTREACH AND 

PREVENTION, AND FACILITATION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE LABORMANAGEMENT COMMUNITY.
51

PERFORMANCE GOAL 2.1.2: PROVIDE EFFECTIVE, USEFUL, UP-TO-DATE CASEPROCESSING AND CASE-LAW RESOURCES AND TRAININGS FOR THE LABORMANAGEMENT COMMUNITY.

Each FLRA component delivers training and outreach in a manner reflecting its unique 

expertise. The OGC, as well as the Authority, delivers case-processing and case-law training 

services that have a statutory focus, which makes them appropriate for remote, online, and 

recorded media. In FY 2023, the OGC provided 90 live in-person and virtual, as well as ondemand, training sessions on the FLRA YouTube channel, to 19,671 participants.

CADRO offers various prevention services that are designed to help party representatives 

more effectively and efficiently solve complex workplace problems and make important 

decisions, which can be especially difficult in traditional labor-management relationships. 

Communication skills, interest-based problem-solving skills, facilitation skills, collectivebargaining skills, dispute-resolution techniques, and effective advocacy in ADR forums are just 

some of what CADRO staff teach management and union representatives. For some parties, 

the goal is to repair damaged workplace relationships. For others, the goal is to improve the 

operation of a stable, traditional labor-management relationship. For yet others, CADRO staff 

help parties develop and implement a trajectory from a traditional labor-management 

relationship to a highly collaborative labor-management partnership. Ultimately, CADRO 

offers these services to help parties improve mission performance, quality of work life, and 

day-to-day workplace relationships.

By training parties on their statutory rights and obligations, as well as improving laborrelations, the FLRA exercises leadership in the manner envisioned by the Statute and by the 

President’s Executive Order Protecting the Federal Workforce (14003), his Executive Order on 

Worker Organizing and Empowerment (14025), and the White House Task Force on Worker 

Organizing and Empowerment Report adopted by the President.

In situations where parties experience labor-management challenges, targeted assistance can 

promote stable labor-management relationships by educating the parties regarding their 

statutory rights and obligations. It can also promote effective and efficient Government by 

assisting parties in addressing their disputes without necessarily resorting to formal filings. 

Additional targeted assistance may take various forms, including offering training to parties 

on particular topics that have given rise to frequent ULP charges, negotiability disputes, or 

arbitration exceptions. Other types of assistance might be most appropriate for parties 

experiencing broader labor-management challenges. For parties involved in complex 

representational matters, targeted assistance can include conducting conferences with the 

parties to assist them in identifying and, if feasible, resolving relevant issues.
52

Measure 2.1.1a (Previously 2.1.1): The number of training, labor-management 

improvement, outreach, and facilitation activities delivered.

Results Targets

FY 2021 54

Met

FY 2021 40

FY 2022 76

Met

FY 2022 40

FY 2023 112

Met

FY 2023 40

FY 2024 40

FY 2025 40

Measure 2.1.1b (Previously 2.1.2): The number of recipients of training, labormanagement improvement, outreach, and facilitation activities.*

Results Targets

FY 2021 7,886

Met

FY 2021 2,500

FY 2022 18,791

Met

FY 2022 2,500

FY 2023 22,946

Met

FY 2023 15,000

*Virtual training began in 2020 leading to significant 

increases in reach.

FY 2024 15,000

FY 2025 15,000

Measure 2.1.1c (Previously 2.1.3): The percentage of participant responders who 

highly rate the training that they received.

Results Targets

FY 2021 93%

Met

FY 2021 80%

FY 2022 96%

Met

FY 2022 80%

FY 2023 94%*

Met

FY 2023 80%

*Reflects ratings of 99 trainings provided by OGC. FY 2024 80%

FY 2025 80%
53

Measure 2.1.1d: (Previously 2.1.4): The number of times that on-demand online 

training is used.

Results Targets

FY 2022 15,000+

Met

FY 2022 1,000

FY 2023 18,000+

Met

FY 2023 1,000

* New FY 2022 Measure. FY 2024 1,000

FY 2025 1,000

PERFORMANCE GOAL 2.2.1: SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF A SIGNIFICANT 

PORTION OF FLRA CASES THROUGH ADR.

Parties normally litigate because they want an answer to a legal question. Getting an answer 

to a legal question is different from solving the problem that gave rise to the legal question. A 

large percentage of parties to cases before the FLRA elect to use our ADR services to prevent 

and solve workplace problems.

ADR is any type of dispute resolution process—other than litigation—that is administered by a 

third party who has no stake in the outcome. There are many types of ADR, from facilitative 

at one end of the spectrum, to evaluative at the other. Types of ADR used by skilled 

professionals at the FLRA include mediation, facilitation, settlement conferences, and 

mediation-arbitration. Other ADR tools are also used when appropriate.

Measure 2.2.1a (Previously 2.2.1): Percentage of unfair labor practice cases where 

OGC offer of ADR is accepted and case is partially or fully resolved.

Results Targets

FY 2021 99%

Met

FY 2021 95%

FY 2022 99%

Met

FY 2022 95%

FY 2023 99%

Met

FY 2023 95%

FY 2024 95%

FY 2025 95%
54

Measure 2.2.1b (Previously 2.2.2): Percentage of representation cases where OGC 

offer of ADR is accepted and case is partially or fully resolved.

Results Targets

FY 2021 100%

Met

FY 2021 95%

FY 2022 99%

Met

FY 2022 95%

FY 2023 95%

Met

FY 2023 95%

FY 2024 95%

FY 2025 95%

Measure 2.2.1c (New): The percentage of appropriate ULP complaints in which ADR 

services are offered to the parties or ordered by the OALJ Chief Judge.

Results Targets

FY 2022 100%

Met

FY 2022 90%

FY 2023 100%

Met

FY 2023 90%

* New FY 2022 Measure. FY 2024 90%

FY 2025 90%

Measure 2.2.1d (New): The percentage of ULP cases that are partially or totally 

resolved after ADR services are accepted by the parties or ordered by the OALJ Chief 

Judge.

Results Targets

FY 2022 88%

Met

FY 2022 80%

FY 2023 96%

Met

FY 2023 80%

* New FY 2022 Measure. FY 2024 80%

FY 2025 80%

Measure 2.2.2a (New): The percentage of appropriate arbitration cases pending before 

the Authority in which ADR services are offered to the parties.*

Results Targets

FY 2022 N/A FY 2022 N/A

FY 2023 N/A FY 2023 20%

* New FY 2022 Measure. Cases just started 8/2022 – Data 

forthcoming FY 2024 50%

FY 2025 50%
55

Measure 2.2.2b (New): The percentage of arbitration cases that are partially or totally 

resolved after the parties accept an offer of ADR services.

Results Targets

FY 2022 N/A FY 2022 N/A

FY 2023 60%

Met

FY 2023 60%

* New FY 2022 Measure. Cases just started 8/2022 – Data 

forthcoming FY 2024 60%

FY 2025 60%

Measure 2.2.3a (New): The percentage of appropriate negotiability cases pending 

before the Authority in which ADR services are offered to the parties.

Results Targets

FY 2022 100%

Met

FY 2022 90%

FY 2023 100%

Met

FY 2023 90%

* New FY 2022 Measure. FY 2024 90%

FY 2025 90%

Measure 2.2.3b (New): The percentage of proposals or provisions in negotiability cases 

that are partially or totally resolved after the parties accept an offer of ADR services.

Results Targets

FY 2022 100% (170/170)

Met

FY 2022 90%

FY 2023 99% (288/291)

Met

FY 2023 90%

* New FY 2022 Measure. FY 2024 90%

FY 2025 90%

Measure 2.2.3c (New): The percentage of negotiability cases that are partially or 

totally resolved after the parties accept an offer of ADR services.

Results Targets

FY 2022 100% (13/13 cases)

Met

FY 2022 90%

FY 2023 100% (25/25 cases)

Met

FY 2023 90%

* New FY 2022 Measure. FY 2024 90%

FY 2025 90%
56

Measure 2.2.3d (New): The percentage of cases – other than ULP, arbitration, and 

negotiability – that are partially or totally resolved after parties accept an offer of ADR 

services.

Results Targets

FY 2022 100% (5/5 cases)

Met

FY 2022 75%

FY 2023 75% (3/4 cases)

Met

FY 2023 75%

* New FY 2022 Measure. FY 2024 75%

FY 2025 75%

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: WE WILL MANAGE OUR RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY AND 

EFFICIENTLY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE

The FLRA’s ability to fulfill its core mission under the Statute depends on excellent 

management of the organization and its resources. The organizational-excellence goal 

emphasizes how the Agency’s employees, IT infrastructure, and allocation of resources are 

central to achieving all of the strategic goals and objectives outlined in the strategic plan.

The landscape of the Federal workplace and workforce continues to evolve and the need to 

rapidly respond to the changing future of work. It is crucial to simultaneously focus on 

developing the workforce of the future while retaining valuable institutional knowledge.

The Agency is prepared to meet ever-changing business demands through the innovative use 

of IT to best manage the workload and interact with parties. The FLRA continues to be an 

effective steward of taxpayer dollars. The Agency’s future operational approaches are 

designed to foster nimble and seamless deployment of resources coupled with cost-avoidance 

strategies to support productive labor-management relations across the Federal Government.

PERFORMANCE GOAL 3.1.1: DEMONSTRATE STRONG RECRUITMENT AND 

RETENTION PRACTICES.

Measure 3.1.1a (Previously 3.1.1): Demonstrable, strong recruitment and 

retention practices.

Results

2021 • Conducted an Agency-wide recruitment effort for additional members 

for the Agency Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility Team. The 

team now has 15 members that we believe properly reflect the diversity 

of the Agency.

• Developed the official charter for the team that was approved by all 

members and established subcommittees to address the necessary 

actions in line with the new administration’s Executive Orders and 

mandates related to DEIA. The subcommittees include but are not 

limited to Training, Recruiting and Hiring, Agency Events, and Policy 

Review.

2022 • Continued to reinforce recruitment and retention of a diverse and 

inclusionary workforce.
57

• Developed an Agency-wide workforce demographic survey to gain more 

in-depth information from Agency employees to establish various 

employee groups and committees to facilitate diverse Agency programs 

and policies.

• Acquired a new, automated Time and Attendance system and a more 

secure e-OPF (online Official Personnel Folder) system.

• Developed new and improved recruitment strategies based on overall 

time to hire assessments.

• Developed an Agency entrance and exit survey for all employees to gain 

data on incoming perceptions of the Agency and why employees are 

leaving the Agency. This Data will assist us in recruitment planning

and providing the proper consultation to management for developing an 

effective recruitment strategy to successfully fill vacant positions.

2023 • Created an Agency-specific recommendations report incorporating 

strategies for recruitment, training and development to help ensure the 

most effective means of mission accomplishment.

• Partnered with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to:

1) Reduce the time between job opportunity announcements and 

hiring, and 

2) enhance the quality of applicants using subject matter experts and 

the development and utilization of better job analysis criteria and 

assessment questions to identify best qualified applicants.

• Established strategic partnerships between hiring officials and HR 

specialists which is key to the success of the hiring process. HR 

professionals in collaboration with program managers, established and 

conducted regular recurring meetings (referred to as pre-recruitment 

consultations) to discuss current and future position classification 

and/or recruitment needs. The purpose of the pre-recruitment 

consultations is to ensure that the recruitment needs of the respective 

programs are met in a timely and efficient manner. 

• Human Resources Division (HRD) encouraged management officials to 

utilize all available hiring flexibilities. These flexibilities, which often 

reduce the hiring process and eliminate the need to announce or go 

through lengthy recruitment processes, are discussed during preconsultation meetings. Some hiring flexibilities include direct hire 

authority for attorney, cyber security, workforce recruitment program 

and other occupations.

Targets

2023 • Develop an expanded recruitment base that is inclusive of all 

communities to include individuals with disabilities, varied races, 

cultures, incomes, educations, social affiliations, intellectual 

perspectives, languages, religions, ethnicities and members of the 

LGBTQ+ communities.

• Continue automation improvements to include a performance 

management system.

• Effectively utilize the Agency’s diversity, equity, and inclusion 

committee to acquire new ideas to better recruit and retain a diverse 

workforce.
58

• Establish an employee engagement program to raise awareness of how 

the FLRA utilizes Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results 

to strengthen a healthy organizational environment.

• Improve diversity at higher grade levels including supervisory, 

management, and senior executive positions through leadership 

competencies development and strategic recruitment.

2024 • Strengthen internal labor-management employee relations.

• Continue to ensure the safety and security of employees and customers.

• Improve leadership effectiveness to:

1) Establish a safe environment for employees to share ideas, 

innovations and proposals within their subject-matter areas;

2) Empower the workforce to improve processes and results;

3) Build trust and confidence in senior leadership integrity by 

communicating information which impacts the workforce early and 

often, including staff for pre-decisional input on work strategies, 

systems, tools, partners, and methods when feasible.

• Implement enhanced employee recognition, awards, and appreciation 

strategies.

• Measure onboarding effectiveness and new employee experiences.

2025 Recruitment

• Human Capital Management (HCM) will seek and optimize the hiring 

of civilians with critical skills and expertise. The FLRA will continue 

improving upon methods to promote career opportunities, assess skills, 

and maintain senior-level talent management systems to support future 

succession planning. These initiatives all play an important role in 

HCM and are integral in improving recruitment and hiring processes. 

• Drive a data-driven and leading practices approach to recruitment, 

assessment and hiring strategies to strengthen and support DEIA.

• Capitalize on new OPM workplace flexibilities to recruit and retain 

talent.

Assessment

• Improve timeliness and quality of hires. As the Agency competes for 

talent now and in the future, enhanced assessment tools will improve 

the quality of candidates by better matching highly skilled talent to 

positions, thereby reducing hiring costs and attrition. We plan to 

establish effective assessment tools optimizing the hiring process by 

improving reviews of applicant qualifications to result in high quality 

candidates. 

• Develop or identify assessment practices that do not solely rely on 

candidate self-assessments and educational attainment to determine 

their qualifications for competitive service positions in accordance with 

Executive Order 13932, Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment 

and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates. 

Services

• Enhance the retirement services customers and applicants experience 

by providing timely, accurate, and responsive service addressing the 

diverse needs of customers.
59

• Strive to provide employees with a healthy work-life balance, which is a 

key element in maintaining high levels of resilience and performance 

shown by the workforce. The FLRA is committed to strengthening its 

workforce—which will enable them to fulfill the FLRA’s mission.

• Continue to train managers and employees on effective use of available 

workplace flexibilities and work-life programs to improve employee 

engagement and productivity.

PERFORMANCE GOAL 3.1.2: MAINTAIN AND GROW AGENCY EXPERTISE 

THROUGH EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT

Measure 3.1.2a (Restored): Maintain and grow agency expertise through employee 

development.

Results

2022 • Maintain an environment conducive for learning to include greater use 

of technology for online, “on demand” training and the ability to record 

training and information sessions with subsequent availability across 

the workforce as needed.

• Establishment of collaborative exchanges with the Small Agency 

Council (SAC) and the Interagency Human Resources (HR) Policy 

Community of Practice, for example, sharpens the capabilities of the 

Human Resources Division personnel. Sharing of information and

resources among external organizations enhances perspective and 

facilitates compliance and agility to ensure timely implementation of 

HR regulations, programs, operations, policies, and strategies.

• Effective utilization of detail opportunities for experiential learning and 

optimal use of available talent. This increases knowledge of the 

operations, standards, and customer relations of other FLRA 

components.

2023 • Partnered with the OPM, the Department of Labor, and the Interior 

Business Center on numerous HCM development courses for HRD staff 

at no cost. 

• Educated HR professionals and stakeholders on available hiring 

authorities and flexibilities to expedite hiring processes. Civilian hiring 

is multi-faceted and requires continuous collaboration between HR and 

hiring managers. This initiative educated stakeholders in the 

understanding of available hiring flexibilities, to include traditional 

appointing authorities and pay flexibilities. 

• Expanded workforce data and HR analytics to better support decision 

makers. Strategically managed civilian workforce planning 

requirements and kept pace with emerging missions and changing 

workforce priorities.

Targets

2023 • Expand networks for training resources to include access to Department 

of the Interior (DOI) University training programs for the FLRA’s

workforce.

• Justify an FTE in the Human Resources Division for an Organization 

Development and Engagement Specialist with functional 
60

responsibilities to integrate strategic planning of organizational goals 

with organizational performance. This involves subject-matter expertise 

in human capital management (e.g., program evaluation, 

accountability, employee engagement best practices) and talent 

management (e.g., employee and leadership development, succession 

planning, workforce planning).

• Deploy an automated performance management system to enhance 

records management, data collection and analysis, and operational 

efficiencies in tracking activities throughout the performance 

management cycle.

2024 • Establish a robust leadership development program in-house or utilize 

external programs to strengthen readiness for promotion at every level 

and ensure a pool of diverse, prepared successors for supervisory, 

management, and executive-level opportunities.

• Explore mentoring programs and peer-to-peer training.

• Increase use of available executive resources services to support senior 

management officials through transitions; ensure executive leadership 

development; improve diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility at 

the highest levels of the Agency; and staff Senior Executive Service 

(SES) and Senior Level (SL) vacancies.

• Coordinate with OPM to implement USA-performance platform to 

automate performance evaluation management for SES, SL and GS 

employees.

2025 Performance

• Customize HCM services and training to employees to help maximize 

Agency and individual performance.

• Improve the link between performance management and recognition to 

support Agency efforts to retain high-performing employees, and those 

with mission-critical skills.

• HCM shall educate management, in coordination with the Budget and 

Finance Office, on the use of monetary and nonmonetary recognition 

throughout the entire performance cycle, which provides supervisors 

and managers with the tools to improve performance by building a 

culture of recognition for achievement.

Webpage

• Update the website to provide customers with more practicable HR 

information that is user-centric and user-friendly.
61

PERFORMANCE GOAL 3.2.1: IMPROVE EFILING CAPABILITY AND 

MAXIMIZE ITS USE IN RECEIVING CASE FILINGS.

Measure 3.2.1a (Previously 3.2.1): Expand the use of electronic filing for all 

components.

Results

2021 • 68% of cases eFiled Agency-wide.

• 78% of Authority cases eFiled.

• OGC eFiling increased by 14%.

• Research and planning began to vastly increase capabilities of the 

eFiling system to allow a wider array of case types/actions and 

interactions.

2022 • 77% of cases eFiled Agency-wide.

• 74% of OGC cases eFiled.

• OGC eFiling has increased 8% from FY 2021.

2023 • Successfully amended the regulations to include opt-in for electronic 

service of documents

• Modified regulations to update negotiability case filing/processing, and

workgroup established to recommend additional changes to procedural 

regulations

• Updated eFiling application to add functionality to support regulatory 

changes/updates

• Overall, 79% of cases eFiled, falling short of our goal of 80%. Lack of 

funding stymied development work to accommodate eFiling 

improvements

Targets

2023 • 80% of cases filed electronically.

• Critically review and revise FLRA regulations to modernize filing 

requirements.

2024 • Fully align procedural regulations for case submission with available 

technology resources (eFile, etc.) to eliminate costly legacy means.

2025 • Implement significant regulatory changes to align with Electronic Case 

Filing modernization efforts.
62

Measure 3.2.1b (Previously 3.2.2): Move the FLRA towards 100% electronic case 

files, electronic permanent records, and electronic case management. 

Results

2021 • Combined original Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the four-phase plan to 

implement fully-electronic casefile. Developed and tested end-to-end 

electronic case files for the Authority component, rolled out in late 2020.

2022 • Enhancements and improvements continue on Authority CMS. OGC 

CMS development hindered by lack of appropriated funds, but 

continues slowly.

2023 • Development efforts have come to a standstill due to insufficient 

development funds.

• Minor improvements to the Authority CMS system

Targets

2023 • OGC implement “electronic” ULP and REP case filing system for all 

new cases; eliminate use of analog case files.

• Continue development and implementation of end-to-end electronic 

casefile system for all components.

2024 • Continue development and implementation of end-to-end electronic 

casefile system for all components. Align Agency policies and 

procedures for full acceptance of fully Electronic Casefile.

2025 • Continue development and implementation of end-to-end electronic 

casefile system for all components. Align Agency policies and 

procedures for full acceptance of fully Electronic Casefile.

PERFORMANCE GOAL 3.2.2: ENHANCE EMPLOYEE TECHNOLOGY USAGE 

AND SKILLS AT EVERY LEVEL

Measure 3.2.2a (New) (Previously 3.2.3): Achieve an exceptional level of 

information security by increasing the percentage of systems using a zero-trust model 

and multifactor authentication and by promptly complying with cybersecurity orders 

and directives.

Results

2021 *New Measure for 2022

2022 • 75% of systems using Zero Trust model, CISA-Standard CDM and EDR 

implemented fully

2023 • 80% of systems are fully Zero Trust, but lack of funding for 

modernization of systems has prohibited progress

Targets

2023 • 90% of systems using Zero Trust model; Multifactor Authentication in 

use for all externally provided systems

2024 • 100% Zero Trust architecture, MFA in all internal and external facing 

systems

2025 • 100% Zero Trust architecture, MFA in all internal and external facing 

systems
63

Measure 3.2.2b (Previously 3b-4): Assess how internal and external customers 

perceive the effectiveness of the Agency’s IT modernization efforts. 

Results

2021 • Received overwhelmingly positive comments about the effort to move 

from legacy DMS solution to new integrated DMS.

2022 • Used surveys and focus group meetings to assess the success and 

acceptance of the migration out of iManage and into SharePoint. 

Achieved about 90% satisfaction with both the new resource and the 

migration effort.

2023 • Near 100% participation in the opt-in for electronic delivery of 

documents for eFiled cases.

Targets

2023 • Continue to administer targeted surveys to assess usability of proposed 

broad changes and enhancements to eFiling and case-management.

• Apply lessons learned and improve surveying for Agency migration of 

video and telephone services to a cloud platform.

• Maintain open dialog with internal and external customers to best 

diagnose, assess, and plan future fixes and enhancements.

2024 • Continue to administer targeted surveys to assess usability of changes, 

fixes, and enhancements to the eFiling system and the Authority 

component CMS.

• Apply lessons learned and improve surveying for new development 

work for the OGC Component Case Management System.

• Maintain open dialog with internal and external customers to best 

diagnose, assess, and plan future fixes and enhancements.

2025 • Continue to administer targeted surveys to assess usability of changes, 

fixes, and enhancements to the eFiling system and the Authority 

component CMS.

• Apply lessons learned and improve surveying for new development 

work for the remaining components’ Case Management Systems.

• Maintain open dialog with internal and external customers to best 

diagnose, assess, and plan future fixes and enhancements.

PERFORMANCE GOAL 3.3.1: ACHIEVE HIGH INTERNAL CUSTOMERSERVICE SCORES ON DELIVERY OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Measure 3.3.1a (New) (Previously 3.1.2): Improvement in overall employee job 

satisfaction, as demonstrated through the score for question 42 of the Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS).

Year Results Targets

Reported in 2021 73% satisfied in 2020

Reported in 2022 73% satisfied in 2021

Reported in 2023 80% satisfied in 2022 75% satisfied

Reported in 2024 77% satisfied

Reported in 2025 77% satisfied
1

U.S. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

1400 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20424

FLRA.gov