Labor Relations Activities: Actions Needed to Improve Tracking and Reporting of the Use and Cost of Official Time
Released: 2014-11-18T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Official time is time spent by federal employees performing certain union representational activities, such as negotiations and handling grievances. Employees on official time are treated as if they are in a duty status and are paid accordingly. OPM's estimated total payroll costs, salary and benefits, for fiscal year 2012 official time hours was over $156 million and covered more than 1.2 million employees. GAO was asked to review federal rules relating to the use of official time.

This report (1) describes the extent of official time use by 10 selected agencies; (2) assesses OPM's cost estimate for official time; and (3) examines OPM's reporting on official time. GAO obtained usage data from agencies and OPM's annual reports. For this study, GAO selected 10 agencies (National Science Foundation, Railroad Retirement Board, Social Security Administration, and the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs) representing 47 percent of BU employees covered by OPM's report. GAO's selection was based on factors such as agency size, number of BU employees, and official time rate.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The ten agencies GAO reviewed reported using 2.5 million official time hours in fiscal year 2013 compared to about 2 million hours in fiscal year 2006. Although the total number of hours charged increased by 25 percent, 7 of the 10 selected agencies reported lower official time rates in fiscal year 2013 as compared to fiscal year 2006. Three agencies reported increased official time rates over the same period. Official time rates indicate the number of official time hours expended per bargaining unit (BU) employee and allow for meaningful comparisons over time. Declines in official time rates per BU employee ranged from about 30 minutes or less at several agencies to 2-1/2 fewer hours per BU employee at one agency. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) attributed changes in the number of hours, in part, to changes in the number of BU employees and the amount of collective bargaining negotiations. In total for fiscal year 2013, the 10 selected agencies reported that less than 2 percent of employees charged official time. During the same year, eight of the 10 agencies reported having employees who charged 100 percent of their duty time to official time; a total of 386 employees combined. Two agencies reported having no employees who charged 100 percent official time in fiscal year 2013.

OPM has historically estimated annual official time costs by using a simple computation—multiplying each agency's average salary as reported in its Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) database for BU employees covered by official time activities by the agency's total reported official time hours. GAO computed its own cost estimate using an alternative methodology that used actual salary data of BU employees who in fact charged official time and multiplied this amount by the agency total reported official time hours used for each individual. GAO computed a cost estimate for the 6 of our 10 selected agencies that report through EHRI. GAO found that its cost estimate for these 6 agencies yielded an estimate that was about $5 million more than the estimate using OPM's methodology ($61 million versus $56 million, or a difference of about 9 percent). Further, cost estimates using GAO's methodology at 4 of the 6 agencies were higher by 15 percent or more than the estimates using OPM's methodology. A government-wide cost estimate could be higher or lower if this methodology was applied to all agencies. OPM said reporting on official time is not a priority at this time and they have used the same methodology for preparing its cost estimate since fiscal year 2002. Use of other methodologies may result in a more representative estimate of actual cost.

OPM issues reports on official time to assist agencies with ensuring accountability in labor-management relations. It reports on official time usage government-wide. OPM asks agencies to verify data that OPM obtains through its EHRI database. According to OPM, at least half of the about 50 agencies that report official time data through EHRI report differences with the EHRI data and provide revised official time data to OPM. While OPM reports the corrected data, it does not follow-up with agencies to determine the source of data differences. Its guidelines state the importance of pursuing high quality data, reliable data on program costs. By not following up with agencies on data differences, OPM may be missing an opportunity to improve data quality on agency reporting through EHRI and enable a less labor intensive and more efficient process.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends, among other things, that OPM (1) consider other approaches to developing its cost estimate and (2) work with agencies to identify opportunities to increase efficiency of data collection and reporting through EHRI. OPM partially concurred but raised questions about implementation costs and limits to its authority. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute),  enacted in 1978, reflects a congressional finding that federal unions are in  the public interest and contributes to effectively conducting public  business. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),  federal unions, because their memberships are entirely voluntary for  federal employees, rely on the volunteer work of bargaining unit (BU)  employees, rather than paid union business agents to represent  employees on matters such as collective bargaining and grievances. The  statute allows for the use of official time for union representational  activities in the federal government. Official time is time spent by federal  employees performing representational work for a BU in lieu of their  regularly assigned work. Employees on official time are treated as if they  are in a duty status when they are engaging in representational activities  and are paid accordingly. Union representational activities generally  include (1) term bargaining for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA);  (2) mid-term bargaining over changes in working conditions during the  term of an existing CBA; (3) filing and processing of grievances against  management; and (4) discussions between management and employees  concerning grievances, among other things.

Agencies have been managing the use of official time since the late  1970s. OPM’s most recent reporting on official time covers fiscal year  2012 and shows that unions at 62 agencies represented more than 1.2  million employees and that certain BU employees spent over 3.4 million  hours performing representational activities on official time.estimated the total payroll costs (salary and benefits for all BU  employees) for fiscal year 2012 official time hours at just over $156  million. According to OPM, in fiscal year 2012 this represented one-tenth  of 1 percent of the total cost of salary and benefits for all federal  employees. In addition to official time, unions may also negotiate to  receive other support from agencies, such as office space, supplies,  equipment, and some travel expenses. In reporting on the use of official  time within federal agencies, OPM noted that agency management and  labor share responsibility to ensure official time is authorized and used  appropriately. While not addressed in OPM’s 2012 reporting, OPM’s 2011  report on official time stated that the increased amount of official time  used by agencies can depend on a number of factors, such as the timing  of term negotiations, number of grievances, and involvement of unions in  labor management decisions.

Reflecting longstanding congressional interest since the enactment of the  Statute, we reported in 1979 on how agencies accounted for and  monitored the amount of official time employees spent on  representational activities. In the late 1990s, we and OPM each issued reports on agencies’ use of official time.the extent to which 10 selected agencies reported using official time; (2)  assesses the extent to which OPM’s cost estimate for official time aligns  with leading cost estimation practices; (3) examines OPM reporting on  official time; and (4) determines the extent to which selected agencies  vary in their approaches for managing official time and related internal  control practices, and describes reported benefits. We included available  information on both costs and benefits to be consistent with standard  economic principles for evaluating federal programs and generally  accepted government auditing standards.

This current report (1) describes  To address these objectives, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of  10 of 61 agencies that reported official time data to OPM for fiscal year  2011.  We selected the 10 agencies using the following factors: (1) the  number of BU employees; (2) agency size; (3) rate of official time use; (4)  the number of BUs and unions represented at the agency; and (5) the  amount of reported agency salary costs associated with official time (see  table 1 for agencies and data on selected criteria and appendix I, table 10   In fiscal year 2011, the 10 agencies accounted for  for all criteria used).approximately 47 percent of BU employees who were covered by OPM’s  official time report.

To describe the extent to which the 10 selected agencies reported using  official time, we used OPM’s published reports that included relevant data  for each of the 10 selected agencies and covered fiscal years 2006  through 2011. We obtained official time usage data for fiscal years 2012  and 2013 directly from each of the 10 selected agencies. We reviewed  relevant agency documentation, interviewed agency officials charged with  administering agency official time processes, and reviewed  documentation to better understand the data systems each agency used  to collect and report such data as well as the quality of data entered into  their systems. We began our analyses with fiscal year 2006 because that  was the first year in which OPM consistently reported all data elements  for each of our 10 selected agencies. These include: (1) total official time  hours; (2) count of BU employees; (3) rate of official time; (4) official time  hours by four categories, including term negotiations, mid-term  negotiations, dispute resolution, and general labor-management relations;  (5) reported salary costs; and (6) total costs. We selected fiscal year 2013  as the endpoint because it was the most recent, complete fiscal year of  data available during our review.

To assess how OPM’s cost estimate aligned with leading cost estimation  practices, we compared the methodology OPM uses to estimate the costs  of official time with our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.cross-checked OPM’s methodology with an alternative methodology as  part of our assessment of the reliability of OPM’s cost estimate. Using  fiscal year 2013 salary data from OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources   We  Integration (EHRI) database, we developed a methodology that uses an  alternative wage rate—salaries of employees who charged official time.

To further support our analysis, we used the EHRI Statistical Data Mart,  which contains information on personnel actions and payroll data for most  federal civilian employees, including employees of our 10 selected  agencies. We assessed the reliability of EHRI data through electronic  testing to identify missing data. We also interviewed OPM officials  knowledgeable about the EHRI data to discuss the data’s accuracy and  steps OPM takes to ensure reliability. On the basis of this assessment,  we believe the EHRI payroll and personnel data we used are sufficiently  reliable for the purpose of this report.

To examine the extent of OPM reporting on the use of official time, we  used OPM’s published reports that included government-wide official time  data between fiscal years 2002 and 2011. We reviewed relevant agency  documentation, interviewed agency officials responsible for producing  government-wide reports on official time, and reviewed documentation to  better understand OPM’s role in collecting and reporting on the use of  official time. See appendix III for OPM reporting on official time for fiscal  years 2002 to 2012.

To determine the extent to which selected agencies varied in their  approaches for managing official time, we provided a structured  document request to each of our 10 selected agencies on their practices.  We also performed a content analysis of 173 active CBAs from the 10  agencies to create a unique database of official time provisions. These  173 CBAs represent a universe of CBAs provided by our selected  agencies (i.e., our review includes all agreements covering BU  employees for which OPM reports official time at our selected agencies).  We also interviewed agency labor management relations officials from  our selected agencies with responsibility for administering their agency’s  use of official time.

To describe reported benefits of official time, we interviewed agency  management and union officials from 3 of our 10 selected agencies (VA,  Treasury, and SSA) to obtain their viewpoints. These three agencies  reflect a large proportion of BU employees and also utilize different  approaches for capturing and reporting official time.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to October 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details about our  objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Statute provides a legal basis for the current federal labor and  management relations program and establishes two sources of official  time. Official time for, both, collective bargaining and Federal Labor  Relations Authority (FLRA)-related activities, such as negotiations,  attendance at impasse proceedings, and participation in proceedings  before the FLRA, is provided as a statutory right. Official time for other  purposes must be negotiated between the agency and the union in an  agreed-upon amount deemed reasonable, necessary, and in the public  interest. However, activities that relate to internal union business, such  as the solicitation of members or the election of union officials, must be  performed when in a non-duty status; that is, not on official time.

In a 1979 report, we recommended that OPM (1) clarify its recordkeeping  requirements then in effect for capturing time spent on representational  activities, and (2) direct agencies to comply with those requirements.  Following our report, in 1981, OPM issued Federal Personnel Manual  Letter 711-161. The letter stated that, no later than January 1, 1982,  federal agencies activate a recordkeeping system to capture official time  charges to representational activities. But the letter did not require  agencies to report the yearly time charges to OPM, as we had  recommended. As a result, OPM never consolidated the amount of time  charged government-wide to union activities and has no information on  agencies’ compliance with the recordkeeping requirement. When the  Federal Personnel Manual was abolished in 1994, all recordkeeping  requirements regarding time spent on union activities were rescinded.

In a 1997 report accompanying an appropriations bill, the House  Appropriations Committee requested that OPM provide a one-time report  on the total hours of official time spent on representational activities,  number of employees who used official time, and related costs (salary,  office space, equipment, and telephone) covering the first 6 months of  calendar year 1998. In response, OPM reported that a total of 23,965  federal employees used approximately 2.2 million hours during the 6- month sample period. OPM estimated the cost of this time at about $48  million. OPM also reported that 946 of these employees (or 4 percent)  worked 100 percent of the time in a representational capacity. OPM has  prepared reports on official time usage since fiscal year 2002 and most  recently for the period covering fiscal year 2012.

section_title: Most Selected Agencies Reported Lower Rates of Official Time Use but the Potential for Underreporting Exists
subsections: section_title: Usage Rates Are Trending Lower but Total Hours Used Overall Increased between Fiscal Years 2006 and 2013
paragraphs: Seven of 10 selected agencies reported lower official time rates in fiscal  year 2013 compared to fiscal year 2006, as shown in table 2 below.  Official time rates indicate the number of official time hours expended per  BU employee and allow for meaningful comparison of official time usage  over time. For seven agencies, declines in official time charges per BU  employee ranged from about 30 minutes or less at several agencies to 2- 1/2 fewer hours per BU employee at one agency. The remaining three  agencies—including DHS, DOT, and SSA—reported increased official  time rates. An analysis of the average annual rate of official time use was  somewhat higher but showed a similar pattern for the same seven  agencies with annual declines and three agencies with annual increases.

Overall, the total number of official time hours charged as reported by the  10 selected agencies was higher in fiscal year 2013 when compared to  fiscal year 2006, as shown in table 3 below. In fiscal year 2013, the 10  selected agencies in our review reported that BU employees charged a  total of 2,485,717 hours to official time, an increase of 25 percent  compared to the 1,991,089 hours these agencies reported for fiscal year  2006. We found that half of the agencies reported using more official time  hours in fiscal year 2013 than in fiscal year 2006 (see figure 1 for the  interactive graphic, which represents each individual agency’s official time  rate and hours reported for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2013).

OPM and agencies attributed changes in usage to several reasons.  According to OPM, factors that have contributed to the changes in official  time use in previous years include: an emphasis by agencies on accurately documenting official time  changes in the number of BU employees;  changes in the amount of mid-term and term collective bargaining;  variation in the use of labor-management forums; and  hours.

A number of agencies cited similar factors. For example, RRB attributed  changes in usage to the age of its CBA with the American Federation of  Government Employees labor union, which is almost 30 years old. Thus,  the agency has not had any nationwide negotiations during the time  period which might have required a large number of official time hours.  NSF reported a lower number of charged official time hours in mid-term  negotiations (284 to 110), dispute resolution (203 to 93), and general  labor-management relations (978 to 691). NSF officials informed us that  their official time tally of hours was incomplete for fiscal years 2012 and  2013 because the agency transitioned to a different time and attendance  system, which we will explain more fully later in this report.

Other agencies cited factors such as increases in the amount of  negotiations or general labor-management relations areas impacting  changes in use of official time. For example, DOT officials pointed out that  the increase in official time charges per BU employee was spent  improving labor management relations and internal business processes,  and not litigating disputes. They noted that the agency’s spike in official  time rate between fiscal years 2006 and 2007 may be related to possible  underreporting in fiscal year 2006. This made a subsequent return to  better accuracy appear to be a sharp increase in fiscal year 2007. Most of  DOT’s increased reporting of official time was also in the general labor- management relations category. The agency reported 66,736 hours in  fiscal year 2006 compared to 230,080 hours reported in that category for  fiscal year 2013. According to DOT, the agency’s increase since fiscal  year 2006 in the use of official time in the general labor-management  relations category resulted in turn from increased collaboration between  the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its unions, primarily the  National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). NATCA is FAA’s  largest BU and accounts for the majority of official time used by FAA’s  union representatives. In 2009, FAA and NATCA renegotiated their 2006  CBA.

DHS, with the highest percentage increase of official time hours charged,  also had the biggest percentage increase of BU employees. DHS  reported its largest increases in official time hours in the general labor- management relations category, from 25,785 hours in fiscal year 2006 to  185,509 hours in fiscal year 2013, and also in the mid-term negotiations  category, from 3,416 to 11,045. According to DHS, several factors  contributed to the agency’s increased use of official time hours during the  period. For the first time, the recognition of a BU within the Transportation  Security Administration increased the overall DHS number of BU  employees by more than 40,000 from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012.  In addition, DHS officials said that the establishment of labor- management forums contributed to official time usage fluctuations during  the period. Agency officials explained that as more forums were  established and became more active, the hours expended grew. DHS  also cited budget reductions, sequestration, and furloughs as factors that  led to increases in the general labor-management relations hours  reported, as briefings and meetings with the unions were necessary to  keep them informed of how DHS components would address shortfalls,  avoid or mitigate planned furloughs, and contingency plans for the  potential lapse of future appropriations. In addition, DHS explained that  there was also a corresponding increase in mid-term bargaining hours  reported as unions exercised their right to negotiate based on the notices  they received regarding these matters.

Agency officials told us of instances where agencies may have  underreported the number of official time hours. Several agencies  explained particular internal circumstances that impacted agencies’ ability  to accurately record the number of official time hours charged. For  example, NSF officials told us that the agency transferred its official time  reporting to a different time and attendance system during the middle of  fiscal year 2012. Because of the transition, it did not capture all official  time charges for parts of fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. NSF does  not have a mechanism to retroactively collect incomplete official time data  for these years. A Commerce official told us that one of its components  does not report official time using the same transactional codes as other  components use. As a result, the component had more than 24,000 hours  of official time for fiscal year 2013 that was not accounted for in EHRI.  According to the official, Commerce is negotiating a change in the CBAs  with the three affected unions to report official time using the same  transactional codes that the other components use. In addition, a recent  GAO report found that official time activities at VA were recorded as  administrative leave because the agency’s current time and attendance  system does not have a code to capture official time separately. VA  officials told us that the agency is implementing a new time and  attendance system, the Veterans Affairs Time and Attendance System  (VATAS), which will capture official time usage. According to a VA official,  the agency has not collected official time data through VATAS because of  system issues they are addressing. The officials said VA does not have a  time frame for when VATAS will be in use department-wide.

In addition, we found that some agencies, such as DHS, SSA, and  Commerce, vary in how they report hours charged to labor management  forum meetings conducted under Executive Order 13522. Executive  Order 13522 was designed to establish a cooperative and productive  form of labor-management relations but does not specify how agencies  should treat labor management forum meetings for time and attendance  purposes. Some agencies consider this time as official time and others as  duty time. For example, DHS reported that it advises its components that  time used in relationship to these meetings is to be included as official  time under the general labor management category. On the other hand,  we were told by an SSA official that SSA considers time spent on labor  management forum meetings as duty time. Commerce reported that time  spent at labor management forum meetings, depending on the particular  agency component, is sometimes charged to official time and other times  charged as regular duty time.

section_title: Agencies Reported Relatively Small Numbers of Employees Charged Official Time in Fiscal Year 2013
paragraphs: In total for fiscal year 2013, the 10 selected agencies reported that less  than 2 percent of BU employees from the 10 agencies charged official  time hours. As shown in table 4, the percentage of BU employees who  charged official time at the ten agencies ranged from less than 0.01  percent at VA to 7.5 percent at DOT.

As shown in table 5 below, 8 of our 10 selected agencies reported that a  small number of employees charged 100 percent of their duty time to  official time in fiscal year 2013. We found that each of these eight  agencies have CBAs in place that authorize certain union officials to  charge 100 percent of their time to official time. VA, the largest of our 10  selected agencies with about 265,000 BU employees spread among 18  unions and approximately 200 facilities, reported the highest number of  employees, 259, that charged 100 percent of their time to official time in  fiscal year 2013. Treasury and DHS were next with 44 and 43 of their  respective 2,046 and 2,960 total official time users charging 100 percent  official time. NSF and SSA reported no employees charged 100 percent  of their duty time to official time in fiscal year 2013.

section_title: Use of an Alternative Methodology Could Improve Future Official Time Cost Estimates
subsections: section_title: OPM’s Cost Estimate Does Not Align with Best Practices
paragraphs: OPM did not implement key practices needed to develop a reliable cost  estimate of official time. Specifically, OPM’s cost estimate is not reliable  because it lacks assurance of its accuracy and also lacks adequate  documentation.

OPM could have greater assurance of the accuracy of its cost estimate if  it cross-checked its results using an alternative methodology to determine  whether the results are similar. Since OPM had not published a cost  estimate for fiscal year 2013, we replicated OPM’s methodology for fiscal  year 2012 and applied the methodology to fiscal year 2013 EHRI salary  data to facilitate a comparison of cost estimates for fiscal year 2013.  Basing estimates on an assessment of most likely costs enhances  accuracy. Best practices for high-quality cost estimates incorporate cross- checking with an alternative methodology to see if the results are similar.  If the results are not similar, the methodologies should be reconciled. As  described below, our comparison of the cost estimates generated by the  two methodologies revealed different results.

section_title: Cross-Checking OPM’s Cost Estimate Can Yield a More Reliable Estimate
paragraphs: OPM has historically estimated annual official time costs by using a  simple computation—multiplying each agency’s average salary (as  reported in EHRI) for BU employees covered by official time activities by  the agency’s total reported official time hours. We computed our own cost  estimate for the 6 of our 10 selected agencies who report data through  EHRI using an alternative methodology that used actual salary data of BU  employees who charged official time and multiplied this amount by the   We  agency total reported official time hours used for each employee.found that our cost estimate for the 6 agencies yielded an estimate that  was about $5 million more than the estimate using OPM’s methodology  ($61 million versus $56 million, or a difference of about 9 percent).  Further, cost estimates using GAO’s methodology at 4 of the 6 agencies  were higher by 15 percent or more than the estimates using OPM’s  methodology (see table 6). As a result, OPM’s cost estimate for  government-wide use of official time could be higher or lower if this  methodology were applied to all reporting agencies rather than the 6  agencies used here.

OPM officials said reporting on official time is not a priority at this time  and they have used the same methodology for preparing its estimate  since fiscal year 2002. According to these officials, the publication of  reports on official time is impacted by available resources, such as staff  time, and the consideration of other mission priorities. OPM told us it  produces the official time reports as a resource to help inform agencies,  unions, and the public on the granting and use of official time. DOL and  SSA officials reported that OPM’s reports were useful because they  provide a perspective on agency usage levels. One agency said it uses  the reports to support negotiations with unions. Other agencies may  benefit similarly from OPM reporting on official time. In addition, the  Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) has previously referenced OPM  reports in a recent case.

Use of other methodologies by OPM may result in more representative  estimates of actual costs and OPM may be able to provide better  information to help Congress oversee the use of official time and help  agencies manage this activity.

section_title: OPM’s Cost Estimate Lacked Documentation
paragraphs: OPM’s cost estimate for official time lacked adequate documentation  because OPM could not initially provide a reasonable amount of  documentation on its methodology for producing the cost estimate so that  a cost analyst unfamiliar with the program could quickly replicate the  process and produce the same results. A credible cost estimate is  supported by detailed documentation that describes how it was derived.  The methodology used to derive cost estimates should be thoroughly  documented so that results are replicable. We requested documentation  but the agency was unable to produce it. For example, we submitted  several requests to OPM to understand significant assumptions about the  cost estimate. However, OPM was unable to provide documentation that  guides its estimation process. Accordingly, we developed a summary of  our understanding of OPM’s steps for producing the estimate based on  discussions and e-mails between us and OPM. For example, after several  inquiries about its methodology, OPM provided information about filters it  applies for computing the number of BU employees when finalizing the  number used to compute salary costs. The filters OPM uses could impact  the average salary and total count of BU employees which are key factors  in computing agency total salary costs. We recognize that the  methodology OPM uses can be considered a relatively straightforward  and reasonable labor equation. However, that is all the more reason that  OPM should be able to have its methodology readily available so an  independent analyst could quickly recreate its results.

section_title: Little Agency Data Exist on Non-payroll Costs
paragraphs: Four of our 10 selected agencies reported that they collected data on  non-payroll costs such as travel, office space, telephone service, or  related costs. Among these four agencies, the type of data collected  varied by agency. The other six agencies said they did not collect or track  data on non-payroll costs. SSA is required to report on non-payroll costs   Each year since  related to official time to its appropriations committee.1998, SSA has reported official time costs (hours, dollar value of payroll  costs, travel and per diem, office space, telephones and supplies,  associated interest, and arbitration expenses) to the House  Appropriations Committee. For fiscal year 2013, SSA reported that its  unions’ representational activity costs were $14.6 million, of which $12.6  million were for salary and benefits, $700,000 for travel and per diem,  $1.1 million for office space, telephones, and supplies, and the remainder  split among interest and arbitration expenses.

DOL reported that it tracks non-payroll costs for its unions; however, the  specific types of costs tracked vary by union. For example, DOL reported  office annual rent ($54,000) costs for one union and reported travel  ($268,000) and communication ($6,000) costs for another union for fiscal  year 2013. Another agency, Treasury, reported that IRS, the agency’s  largest bureau with approximately 100,000 employees, has different  needs and practices than some of Treasury’s smaller bureaus and finds it  useful to track administrative costs attributable to official time—union  office space and travel cost—to support agency proposals when  negotiating with the union, and for responding to outside inquiries. HHS  reported it has systems enabling it to track travel costs related to official  time. Further, the organizational units within HHS maintain records and  can generate reports for costs such as office space rentals and services  such as computers, telephones, and copiers.

section_title: While OPM Reports on Its Own Initiative, It May Be Missing an Opportunity to Improve Official Time Reporting
paragraphs: According to OPM, the agency issues reports on agency use of official  time on its own initiative to assist agencies with ensuring accountability in  labor-management relations. Specifically, in a memorandum to agency  and department heads on June 17, 2002, OPM requested each agency to  report by the end of each fiscal year on the number of hours of official  time used by employees to perform representational activities. The first  agency submissions were due to OPM by October 31, 2002, covering  fiscal year 2002. Since fiscal year 2004, OPM has asked agencies to  report official time hours used in the four predefined categories of term  negotiating, mid-term negotiating, dispute resolution, and general labor   In addition, fiscal year 2009 was the first time  management relations.

OPM relied upon agency official time usage data extracted from EHRI.  OPM officials told us that they expected to publish reports for fiscal years  2012 and 2013 by the end of fiscal year 2014 to the extent that data is  available and validated by agencies during this time period.   Subsequently, however, OPM informed us that fiscal year 2013 data has  not been available and validated for all agencies, and that, accordingly,  OPM released a report for fiscal year 2012 on October 3, 2014.

EHRI collects data from the various payroll providers on official time used  in the agencies serviced by the payroll providers. However, according to  OPM, some agencies have not transitioned to reporting official time via  the categories included in electronic payroll systems and must still  provide the official time data to OPM manually. Four of our 10 selected  agencies provided fiscal year 2011 official time data to OPM manually— VA, DOL, HHS, and SSA.

OPM produces reports on government-wide use despite having no  reporting requirement for official time. OPM prepares for reporting on  official time data by asking agencies to verify data that the agencies have  previously provided to OPM through the EHRI database. Between fiscal  years 2009 and 2012, OPM relied on data extracted from EHRI to  prepare its annual reports on official time, but took an additional step in  the process by asking agencies to verify the data reported through  EHRI. As mentioned earlier, EHRI collects agency data on official time from the various payroll providers. Agencies transmit payroll data that  include information on official time hours to payroll providers based upon  agencies’ time and attendance data. According to OPM officials, the  verification is a time and labor intensive process.

OPM asks agencies to verify information such as number of hours used in  each of the four categories of official time use and total hours. Agencies  may confirm OPM’s numbers or make changes based on the agencies’  data. When there are differences, OPM relies on the data verified and  provided by the agencies to prepare its report. OPM does not follow up  with individual agencies who submitted revised usage data to (1)  determine the source of the differences, or (2) identify steps for  improvements to future reporting through EHRI.

As shown in table 7, we found differences between OPM’s EHRI data and  agency data reported to us on total official time hours charged in fiscal  year 2013 for the 6 of our 10 selected agencies that report through EHRI.  As mentioned earlier, 4 of our 10 agencies provide official time data to  OPM manually—VA, DOL, HHS, and SSA.

Internal control standards dictate that management obtains relevant data  from reliable internal and external sources on a timely basis. Federal  financial accounting standards stress that reliable information on the  costs of federal programs or activities is crucial for effective management  of government operations. The standards explain Congress needs cost  information to evaluate program performance, to make program  authorization decisions, and to compare alternative courses of action.  Moreover, OPM’s guidelines instruct the agency on the importance of  pursuing high-quality data and reliable information on program costs.  Specifically, according to OPM’s Information Quality Guidelines, the  agency is to maximize the quality of the information it disseminates.

According to OPM officials, OPM does not know if agencies’ reported  official time hours are accurate. The officials told us generally, at least  half of the about 50 agencies that report official time data through EHRI  revise their official time hours through the report validation process.  However, OPM does not know why agencies submit such changes and  does not request explanatory information. Several of our selected  agencies that report through EHRI provided reasons why there may be  differences. For example, DOT officials explained that DOT collects the  official time data by pay period using pay codes entered by the employee  on their timecard and reflects amendments to previous pay periods. They  explained that because the pay periods do not begin and end on the first  and last day of the fiscal year, the numbers provided may not match the  numbers provided by OPM and that unless the timeframe between the  collection by OPM and DOT are exact, there is a potential for differences.  Commerce told us that the amount of official time reported by EHRI is not  as accurate as what they report because EHRI includes official time that  should not be reported (e.g., official time for employees not covered by  title 5 U.S.C., specifically, foreign service employees).

To date, OPM has not sought to determine reasons for discrepancies  between EHRI and agency reported data. By not following up with  agencies on data differences, OPM may be missing an opportunity to  improve data quality on agency reporting through EHRI and enable a less  labor intensive and more efficient process.

section_title: Agencies’ Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) Most Often Specify Reasonable Time as Approach to Manage Official Time, and Primary Oversight is Generally Left to Immediate Supervisors
paragraphs: CBAs contain provisions by which agencies manage official time.  Typically, an agreement outlines the approach, types of activities that are  allowed and not allowed, and internal controls, such as the supervisory  approval process and practices for verifying authorized employees who  perform representational duties.

Since agencies and unions can negotiate at the department, component,  bureau, operating administration, facility, or local level, there can be  variations in how official time is managed within an agency. For example,  within VA there are 18 unions with 18 CBAs representing about 265,000  BU employees. VA has several components that encompass more than  200 facilities. On the other hand, NSF has one union with one CBA  representing more than 900 BU employees that are located at a single  facility.

Our review of 173 CBAs from the 10 agencies found that agencies  manage official time using three different approaches or a combination of  two or more approaches. These include:

Bank of hours: Specified number of hours or a limit (i.e., not-to- exceed) on the number of hours authorized for representational  activities;

Designated positions: Specified percentage or number of hours  authorized for a designated position, such as the President, Vice- President, Secretary, or Treasurer, and is typically characterized as a  percentage of an employee’s total time, such as 50 or 100; and

Reasonable time: No specified number or percentage of hours for  representational activities (i.e., an agreement may state that a  reasonable amount of time will be granted to a union representative to  accomplish representational duties).

Official time for certain representational activities is provided as a  statutory right. Therefore, if a BU has exhausted its allotted bank of  hours of official time for representational activities before the calendar or  fiscal year ends, it may negotiate additional time with the agency, or  otherwise receive additional time, as appropriate. DHS officials told us  that if their unions used up their allotted bank of hours, additional time  would be granted for union representatives to attend FLRA-mandated  hearings. In addition, one of DOT’s CBAs includes language that  additional time may be requested and approved on a case-by-case basis.
subsections: section_title: Reasonable Time Approach Most Often Used to Manage Official Time
paragraphs: A majority of CBAs at 8 of the 10 agencies contained provisions directing  agencies to use the “reasonable time” approach—one that is not defined  in terms of specific hours—to manage official time for representational  duties. As shown in table 8, 141 of 173 CBAs, or 82 percent, we reviewed   Of the 141  contained provisions for using the reasonable time approach.CBAs that specified the reasonable time approach, 64 used reasonable  time exclusively while the remaining 77 used it in combination with  another approach, such as a bank of hours, designated positions, or both.

For example, Commerce, DHS, DOL, DOT, HHS, Treasury, and VA have  CBAs that contained all three approaches to manage official time. Some  of them included reasonable time for union representatives to conduct  representational activities, designated percentages or hours of official  time for union officers, and a separate bank of hours for travel or training  activities.

The second most frequently used approach to manage official time was  through a bank of hours. Our review found that 93 of 173 CBAs, or 54  percent, in nine agencies contained a provision for using a bank of hours  to conduct representational activities. Of the 93 CBAs that utilized a bank  of hours, 16 specified using a bank of hours exclusively while 77 created  a bank of hours in combination with other approaches. Depending on the  size of the agency and BU, the number of hours allotted to the bank can  vary. For instance, a smaller agency, NSF, included a provision for a  bank of 1,040 hours per year. Larger agencies have a wide range of  hours allotted to the bank. For instance, one of DHS’s CBAs included a  provision for a bank of 30,000 hours per fiscal year, while one of SSA’s  CBAs allotted a bank of 250,000 hours per fiscal year for all  representational activities.

The least often used approach by agencies involved designated positions  with authorized percentages or hours of official time. Of the 49 CBAs that  contained a provision for designated positions, 1 CBA at Treasury  specified using the designated positions approach exclusively and 48  CBAs at eight other agencies used it in combination with other  approaches. We found 27 CBAs at nine agencies that provided for at  least one union official to charge up to 100 percent of their duty hours to  official time. These agencies include: Commerce, DHS, DOL, DOT, HHS,  RRB, SSA, Treasury, and VA.

section_title: Agencies Reported Immediate Supervisors Generally Have Lead in Monitoring Official Time, and Most Took Additional Steps
paragraphs: All agencies we reviewed reported that immediate supervisors generally  have the primary responsibility of approving official time requests and  monitoring use when they sign off on their designated employee’s  timecards. For example, DOL and HHS require immediate supervisors to  monitor and verify official time use for employees under their supervision  and also submit official time hours to their human resources office  periodically, which are then compiled for OPM’s Official Time Reports.  One of DHS’s components, the United States Coast Guard, provides  labor-management relations program guidance and training to educate  immediate supervisors on official time procedures, rights, and  responsibilities to ensure that the provisions for official time are  administered appropriately as specified in relevant CBAs. NSF also  provides training sessions and best practice discussions with all  supervisors responsible for approving official time.

In addition to the supervisory process, some of the agencies’ labor  relations offices have a responsibility to monitor official time. For example,  the labor relations office at DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration  receives official time requests and also monitors and verifies official time  usage. Similarly, DOT’s Federal Transit Administration requires union  representatives to seek approval from immediate supervisors and the  labor relations officer to use official time. NSF’s Labor Relations Officer  monitors official time usage quarterly to determine whether it is being  used within the confines of the CBA.

Eight of 10 agencies reported taking additional steps to monitor official  time. Similar to agency approaches for managing official time, agency  internal controls practices for monitoring official time varied at the eight  agencies because they are negotiated at the exclusive level of  recognition, such as components, bureaus, operating administrations,  and facilities. As shown in table 9, agency practices may include: (1)  comparing authorized versus actual individuals charging official time; (2)  comparing requests for official time versus actual official time used; (3)  verifying that actual official time use does not exceed authorized amounts  through internal reports used by agency management to monitor usage;  and (4) verifying accuracy of official time usage by sharing internal reports  with authorized individuals, such as union representatives. DHS and VA  reported that they do not use any additional practices besides the  monitoring performed by the immediate supervisor.

Of the four practices, agencies we reviewed most often used the list of  authorized union representatives to compare it against those who  charged official time. For example, DOT, HHS, NSF, and Treasury  reported that they provide a list of authorized official time users to  supervisors who are responsible for ensuring that their employees are  authorized to charge official time prior to approving timesheets. SSA’s  internal official time tracking system has built-in capabilities that would  only allow authorized union representatives to request official time and  enter the actual amount used. Commerce partially addressed this practice  because only some of its bureaus reported that they used the list to  cross-verify. For example, Census reported that officials pull reports each  pay period to verify whether an employee should have charged the official  time category while the National Institute of Science and Technology’s  Labor Relations Manager spot checks time and attendance records of  union representatives, using the most recent list of authorized employees  on file with the agency.

Internal reports used to verify that authorized individuals did not exceed  their authorized amounts were the second most-often-used practice  reported by agencies to monitor official time use. For example, NSF used  internal reports to ensure that the total amount of official time hours was  appropriately credited towards the bank as outlined in its CBA. SSA used  internal reports generated from its official time tracking system, which was  programmed to ensure that the time requested by union representatives  and approved by immediate supervisors matches the actual time used. In  addition, the system does not allow users to exceed their authorized  amounts of official time as negotiated in the CBAs. Commerce and DOT  used this practice as well but not all of their bureaus or operating  administrations reported that they used internal reports for cross- verification. For example, one of Commerce’s bureaus, the United States  Patent and Trademark Office, reported that it periodically runs internal  reports on usage and tracks overall use through the official time  categories. Unions that have an allotted bank of hours typically authorize  who can use official time and the amount. According to DOT, only one of  its operating administrations reported using internal reports to verify that  authorized individuals did not exceed their authorized amounts because  official time is drawn from a bank of hours. DOT reported that internal  reports were unnecessary for other operating administrations that use the  reasonable time approach. Regardless of the approaches used, having  internal reports would enable agencies to gauge overall usage, ensure  that individuals did not exceed what they were authorized to use, and  provide reasonable assurance that use of official time is as intended.

OPM is a member of a forum of agencies that exchange information on  issues related to labor management relations. According to OPM officials,  the Employee Labor Relations (ELR) network is an informal group of  agency headquarters labor and employee relations practitioners who  have ongoing communication through face-to-face meetings and e-mail  distribution. OPM said it uses the ELR network to share information on  policies, significant third-party decisions, and best practices. According to  one agency official, the ELR network plans to discuss official time  reporting as an agenda item. This council could be an avenue for OPM to  work with agencies on reporting issues for agency use of official time.  While informal, the ELR network presents an opportunity for OPM to  share information on monitoring and reporting practices for agency use of  official time.

Internal control guidance prescribes management to perform ongoing  monitoring through regular management and supervisory activities,  comparisons, and reconciliations. Monitoring is essential for assessing  the extent of performance over time. OPM officials have stated that  matters relating to official time use are governed by the law and  negotiated between agencies and unions. Consistent with the Federal  Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, OPM has no statutory or  regulatory role for monitoring or enforcing agencies’ use of official time.Consequently, OPM officials said they do not share information on  monitoring practices.

By not sharing monitoring practices among agencies, OPM may be  missing an opportunity to help agencies strengthen their internal controls  for monitoring the use of official time and increase transparency and  accountability.

section_title: Agency Management and Union Officials Cited Similar Benefits on Official Time
paragraphs: While we described earlier in this report costs associated with official  time, agency management and union officials also cited what they  considered to be some benefits of official time. Specifically, agency  management and union officials at three selected agencies—SSA,  Treasury, and VA—told us about several benefits related to official time,  such as (1) improving labor-management relations, and (2) reducing  agency costs. Similar benefits were also cited in our September 1997  report, which surveyed 30 federal agencies on how resources were used  for employee union activities. First, according to both management and  union officials, official time has helped improve labor-management  relations between management and unions because they work jointly to  develop solutions or improvements to address workplace challenges. For  example, some of the Treasury union officials we met with said that  management involved their unions early on in the process when making  suggestions to streamline or fine tune workplace processes, such as  installing a new performance management system and updating existing  procedures. In addition, they also told us that official time has helped to  create an environment where the workforce can be more engaged and  have their voices heard. Treasury officials told us that official time  improves the agency’s efficiency and accomplishment of the mission  because union officials communicate goals to the organization. SSA  management officials told us that allowing official time provides a stable  work environment for SSA employees while SSA union officials said that  official time has played a critical role in improving SSA as a workplace.  For example, they explained that SSA unions were able to negotiate  “flexi-place” arrangements with agency management using official time to  allow employees to work from home. VA union officials told us that official  time has allowed them to help agency management establish workforce  policies related to telework.

Second, according to both management and union officials, the use of  official time by union representatives to address issues, such as potential  unfair labor practices, equal employment opportunity complaints, and  grievances with employees, has led to agency cost savings. For example,  management and union officials at Treasury and VA told us that having  official time has resulted in fewer unfair labor practices and grievances  filed by employees because they are usually resolved at the lowest level  of management. Specifically, VA union officials told us that a VA union  conducted a study of its 22 local chapters and found reductions in  grievances and unfair labor practices because of official time. In addition,  VA management officials said that having on-site union representation  and support helps lessen and resolve disputes more quickly, thereby  assisting the department in moving forward with its mission. Similarly,  SSA union officials also said that official time has helped to resolve  employee issues before escalating to formal grievances or equal  employment opportunity complaints.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The use of official time is granted in statute as being in the public interest  and established in practice by federal agencies. OPM has produced  reports on agencies’ use of official time and estimated government-wide  costs on its own initiative for most years since 2002 while emphasizing  that agency labor and management are both accountable for ensuring  official time is used appropriately. There has been longstanding  congressional interest in official time usage as well as some concern  about the amount, type, accuracy, and timeliness of information available  to help ensure an appropriate level of congressional oversight. The scope  and level of official time use reinforces the need for oversight and  accountability with more than 1.2 million BU employees eligible to use  official time and over 3.4 million hours charged for representational  activities in fiscal year 2012, the latest year for which OPM has reported  this information.

Within this overall context, it is important that sufficient controls,  processes, and guidance are in place for reporting and monitoring to  provide reasonable assurance that official time  is used as intended;  is consistent with the statute and applicable agency policies and  procedures; enables congressional oversight; informs management and labor decision making; and provides public transparency.

OPM has historically estimated official time costs using a methodology  that uses the average salary of all employees in a BU. An alternative  methodology using actual salary data of BU employees who charged  official time would yield a different estimate than OPM’s methodology.  The use of alternative cost estimation methodologies may result in a more  representative estimate of actual costs. Since OPM recognizes  weaknesses in data collected through its EHRI database, OPM must  expend additional resources to validate official time data. OPM reports  that on any given year, about half of about 50 agencies reporting change  their submissions during the validation process. OPM’s attempt to  improve the reliability of official time data by having agencies validate  their data is noteworthy but labor intensive and time consuming. By not  following up with agencies on data differences, OPM may be missing an  opportunity to improve data quality on agency reporting through EHRI and  enable a less labor intensive and more efficient process. In addition,  Congress may not have the most accurate information on the use of  official time at agencies to support its oversight activities.

Since agencies are most often managing the use of official time using an  approach that has no specified number of hours, they could be at a  greater risk for abuse. The risk may increase within agencies with multiple  collective bargaining agreements at the department, component and  operating administration levels that have differences in how official time is  managed. Hence, agencies may need to implement additional actions to  monitor the use of official time to help mitigate the risk of abuse. Agencies  that use a reasonable time approach and rely exclusively on immediate  supervisors for monitoring could benefit from the experience of other  agencies that use a number of techniques to monitor the use of official  time. By not considering whether it would be useful for agencies to share  information on monitoring practices, OPM may be missing an opportunity  to assist agencies in strengthening internal controls and increasing  transparency and accountability.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that OPM and agencies collect, track, and report reliable  data on the use of official time, we recommend that the Director of OPM  take the following three actions:

Consider other approaches to developing its cost estimate.

Work with agencies to identify opportunities to increase efficiency of  data collection and reporting through EHRI.

Consider whether it would be useful to share agencies’ practices on  monitoring use of official time through existing forums such as the  ELR network.

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OPM for review and  comment. OPM commented on our three recommendations and partially  concurred on all three. OPM also provided technical comments which we  incorporated as appropriate. OPM’s written comments are reprinted in  appendix IV. We also provided an abridged draft laying out key facts and  information to the 10 selected agencies we reviewed and incorporated  comments where appropriate.

OPM partially concurred with our first recommendation that the agency  should consider other approaches to developing its cost estimate.  OPM  agreed to consider other approaches to developing its cost estimates in  addition to considering whether to continue using its current methodology.  OPM stated that its cost estimates have been based on (1) official time  and average salary data provided to OPM through EHRI; (2) official time  data manually provided directly to OPM by certain agencies; and (3)  official time data manually updated by a number of agencies. OPM said  that the approach we used in the report linking official time hours taken by  specific individuals to those individuals’ actual salaries is not always  possible using EHRI in all instances and is a labor intensive, and thus  more costly process to undertake for the entire executive branch. The  methodology we used was intended as an example of an alternative  method for producing a cost estimate.

OPM reported to us on October 15, 2014, that 52 of the 62 agencies that  reported fiscal year 2012 official time data to OPM did so using EHRI,  thus OPM would be able to link official time hours used by specific  individuals to the actual salaries for the overwhelming majority of  reporting agencies.  Although our approach may be slightly more labor  intensive, it provides greater assurance that the cost reported is more  representative of actual cost and, ultimately, more useful for oversight  purposes.

OPM partially concurred with our second recommendation that the  agency should work with other agencies to identify opportunities to  increase the efficiency of data collection and reporting through EHRI.   OPM stated that it will work with agencies to identify opportunities which  they may wish to consider in order to increase the efficiency of data  collection and reporting of official time through EHRI. However, OPM  stated that it has no authority to direct agency actions regarding official  time, including how official time data is collected and reported.  It added  that any opportunities to increase efficiency of data collection and  reporting of official time are ultimately dependent upon individual agency  determinations subject to local collective bargaining obligations.

We agree that agencies are ultimately responsible for making changes to  their data collection but OPM plays an important role via its reporting of  official time. By following up with agencies that report discrepancies  during the verification process, OPM could determine whether there are  less resource-intensive alternatives for agencies to pursue that would  yield more accurate data. We continue to believe that by following up with  agencies on data differences, OPM has an opportunity to help improve  the data quality on agency reporting through EHRI.

OPM partially concurred with our third recommendation that the agency  consider whether it would be useful to share agencies’ practices on  monitoring use of official time through existing forums such as the ELR  network.  OPM stated that it will consider whether it would be useful to  share agencies’ practices on monitoring use of official time through  existing forums such as the ELR network, but ultimately, implementation  of any identified practices is subject to each agency’s policies and their  collective bargaining obligations. We continue to believe that OPM has an  opportunity to strengthen its assistance to agencies by sharing  techniques and approaches on monitoring official time in a collaborative  manner through its membership in the ELR network.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director  of OPM and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at www.gao.gov. If you have  any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-6722 or  BagdoyanS@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix  V.

section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this engagement were to review the use of official time  by federal agencies and the federal rules relating to the use of official time  by federal employees. Specifically, this report (1) describes the extent to  which 10 selected agencies reported using official time; (2) assesses the  extent to which OPM’s cost estimate for official time aligns with leading  cost estimation practices; (3) examines OPM reporting on official time;  and (4) determines the extent to which selected agencies vary in their  approach for managing official time and related internal control practices,  and describes reported benefits. We included available information on  both costs and benefits to be consistent with standard economic  principles for evaluating federal programs and generally accepted  government auditing standards. For purposes of this review, “use of  official time” will constitute time charged to an official time and attendance  code.

To address these objectives, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of  10 of 61 agencies that reported official time data covering fiscal year 2011  to OPM. We selected the 10 agencies using the following factors: (1) the  number of bargaining unit (BU) employees, (2) agency size, (3) rate of  official time use, (4) the number of BUs and unions represented at the  agency, and (5) the amount of reported agency salary costs associated  with official time (see table 10 for agencies and data on selected criteria).  In fiscal year 2011, the 10 agencies accounted for approximately 47  percent of BU employees.

To describe the extent to which the 10 selected agencies reported using  official time, we used OPM’s published reports on official time that  included official time data for each of the 10 selected agencies and  covered fiscal years 2002 through 2011. We provided a structured  document request to the 10 selected agencies to collect official time  usage data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. We reviewed relevant agency  documentation, interviewed agency officials charged with administering  agency official time processes, and reviewed documentation to better  understand the data systems each agency used to collect and report such  data, as well as the quality of data entered into their systems. Specifically,  we examined the data provided for obvious errors and inconsistencies  and we also queried each of the 10 agencies to better understand the  data systems each agency used to collect and report official time usage  data, as well as to the quality of data entered into their systems. We  determined that agency official time usage data for fiscal years 2012 and  2013 are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report.

To further support our analysis, we used OPM’s Enterprise Human  Resources Integration (EHRI) Statistical Data Mart, which contains  information on personnel actions and payroll data for most federal civilian  employees, including employees of our 10 selected agencies. We  assessed the reliability of EHRI data through electronic testing to identify  missing data, out-of-range values, and logical inconsistencies. We also  reviewed our prior work assessing the reliability of these data and  interviewed OPM officials knowledgeable about the data to discuss the  data’s accuracy and steps OPM takes to ensure reliability. On the basis of  this assessment, we believe the EHRI data we used are sufficiently  reliable for the purpose of this report.

We began our analyses with fiscal year 2006 because that is the first year  in which OPM consistently reported all data elements for each of our 10  selected agencies.because it was the most recent, complete fiscal year of data available  during our review.

We selected fiscal year 2013 as the endpoint  To assess whether OPM’s cost estimate for agency use of official time  aligned with leading cost estimation practices, we compared OPM’s  method and approach for preparing its estimate with GAO’s Cost  Estimating and Assessment Guide. For this guide, GAO cost experts assessed measures consistently applied by cost-estimating organizations  throughout the federal government and industry, and considered best  practices for the development of reliable cost estimates.

We assessed whether OPM’s estimate met the four desired  characteristics for sound cost estimating, which include: well documented,  comprehensive, accurate, and credible. We performed a limited analysis  of the cost estimating practices used by OPM against the characteristics.  The cost estimating best practices criteria will be limited because OPM  did not develop a life-cycle cost estimate. OPM collects statistics on  agency use of official time, including hours per year and estimated costs  of prior years, and applies a straightforward labor equation. To calculate  the total cost, OPM uses an equation that is wage rate (plus a fringe rate)  multiplied by hours used. For the wage rate, OPM uses an agency  average of salaries for all employees who belong to a BU.

As a part of our assessment of the reliability of OPM’s cost estimate, we  cross-checked OPM’s methodology with an alternative methodology.  Using fiscal year 2013 salary data from EHRI, we developed a  methodology that uses an alternative wage rate—salaries of employees  who charged official time. To calculate the total cost, we calculated  hourly costs plus fringe rate for individuals who charged greater than zero  hours of official time in any category. Our approach included using the  same filters and merges as OPM used, according to its responses to our  queries. We conducted interviews with knowledgeable OPM officials and  provided OPM with a description of our analysis to ensure our  assumptions were consistent with their approach.

To examine the extent of OPM reporting on the use of official time, we  used OPM’s published reports that included government-wide official time  data from federal agencies between fiscal years 2002 through 2011. We  reviewed relevant agency documentation, interviewed agency officials  responsible for producing government-wide reports on official time, and  reviewed documentation to better understand OPM’s role in collecting  and reporting on use of official time.

To determine the extent to which selected agencies varied in their  approach for managing official time and related internal controls  practices, we reviewed active collective bargaining agreements (CBA)  and related agency documentation provided by the 10 selected agencies  in response to a structured document request. We identified 173 active  CBAs in the 10 selected agencies representing the universe for this  review. We also reviewed agency documentation and interviewed agency  officials knowledgeable on internal control practices used to monitor use  of official time. We do not generalize the results of our analysis to  agencies outside of this review.

We performed a content analysis of 173 CBAs covering active BUs at the  10 selected agencies to create a unique database of official time  provisions. To ensure that we received the appropriate CBAs for all active  BUs, we cross-verified them using information, such as bargaining unit  status (BUS) codes, from OPM’s FLIS and a list of active BUs provided  by OPM. We also followed up with all of our selected agencies to verify  that we correctly matched their CBAs to active BUs using the BUS codes.  In addition, to ensure consistency and accuracy of our analysis of various  agency approaches, analysts independently analyzed CBAs and then  compared their results through a double blind review for all 173 CBAs. In  cases where there were discrepancies, analysts reconciled their  differences for a final determination of an agency’s approach used to  manage official time.

To describe reported benefits of official time, we interviewed agency  management and union officials from 3 of our 10 selected agencies,  including SSA, Treasury, and VA, to obtain their viewpoints.agencies reflected a large proportion of BU employees and also utilized  different approaches for capturing and reporting official time. Because  they are not tangible, we could not independently verify benefits cited by  agency management and union officials.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to October 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

section_title: Appendix II: Official Time Hours and Rates Reported by 10 Selected Agencies for Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2013

section_title: Appendix III: OPM Reporting on Official Time, Fiscal Years 2002 - 2012
paragraphs: OPM reported an overall decrease in government-wide official time hours  between fiscal years 2002 and 2012 with a slight rise between fiscal  years 2006 and 2012 (see figure 12). According to OPM, official time  costs in fiscal year 2012 represented less than 0.1 percent of the civilian  personnel budget for federal civil service BU employees.

section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

section_title: Appendix V: Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Signora J. May (Assistant  Director), Leslie Ashton, Lee Clark, Clifton G. Douglas Jr., Sara Daleski,  Barbara Lancaster, Jason Lee, Andrea Levine, Robert Robinson, Susan  Sato, Cynthia Saunders, Rebecca Shea, and Stewart Small made key  contributions to this report.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: What are official time hours?
answer: Official time rates indicate the number of official time hours expended per bargaining unit (BU) employee and allow for meaningful comparisons over time.

question: What did GAO find regarding the the change of official time hours?
answer: The ten agencies GAO reviewed reported using 2.5 million official time hours in fiscal year 2013 compared to about 2 million hours in fiscal year 2006.
child_questions: question: How did some company official time rates decline?
answer: Although the total number of hours charged increased by 25 percent, 7 of the 10 selected agencies reported lower official time rates in fiscal year 2013 as compared to fiscal year 2006. Declines in official time rates per BU employee ranged from about 30 minutes or less at several agencies to 2-1/2 fewer hours per BU employee at one agency.

question: To what extent did some official time rates increase?
answer: Three agencies reported increased official time rates over the same period.

question: Why did the number of hours change?
answer: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) attributed changes in the number of hours, in part, to changes in the number of BU employees and the amount of collective bargaining negotiations.

question: To what extent did some agencies report no changes?
answer: In total for fiscal year 2013, the 10 selected agencies reported that less than 2 percent of employees charged official time. During the same year, eight of the 10 agencies reported having employees who charged 100 percent of their duty time to official time; a total of 386 employees combined. Two agencies reported having no employees who charged 100 percent official time in fiscal year 2013.

questions: question: How does OPM estimate annual official time costs?
answer: OPM has historically estimated annual official time costs by using a simple computation—multiplying each agency's average salary as reported in its Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) database for BU employees covered by official time activities by the agency's total reported official time hours.

question: How did GAO calculate their own estimated annual official time costs?
answer: GAO computed its own cost estimate using an alternative methodology that used actual salary data of BU employees who in fact charged official time and multiplied this amount by the agency total reported official time hours used for each individual.
child_questions: question: What did GAO do with their estimation method?
answer: GAO computed a cost estimate for the 6 of our 10 selected agencies that report through EHRI.
child_questions: question: What did the GAO's estimate yield in comparison to that of OPM?
answer: GAO found that its cost estimate for these 6 agencies yielded an estimate that was about $5 million more than the estimate using OPM's methodology ($61 million versus $56 million, or a difference of about 9 percent). Further, cost estimates using GAO's methodology at 4 of the 6 agencies were higher by 15 percent or more than the estimates using OPM's methodology.

question: How would the GAO's estimate method change the cost estimate?
answer: A government-wide cost estimate could be higher or lower if this methodology was applied to all agencies.

question: Why has OPM defended their usage of their own estimate method?
answer: OPM said reporting on official time is not a priority at this time and they have used the same methodology for preparing its cost estimate since fiscal year 2002.
child_questions: question: How might other estimates from OPM's estimate change the estimate of actual cost?
answer: Use of other methodologies may result in a more representative estimate of actual cost.

questions: question: What does OPM report on?
answer: OPM issues reports on official time to assist agencies with ensuring accountability in labor-management relations. It reports on official time usage government-wide.
child_questions: question: How does OPM verify their data?
answer: OPM asks agencies to verify data that OPM obtains through its EHRI database. While OPM reports the corrected data, it does not follow-up with agencies to determine the source of data differences. Its guidelines state the importance of pursuing high quality data, reliable data on program costs.
child_questions: question: What data revisions usually take place?
answer: According to OPM, at least half of the about 50 agencies that report official time data through EHRI report differences with the EHRI data and provide revised official time data to OPM.

question: What risks does OPM assume in not following up on data differences?
answer: By not following up with agencies on data differences, OPM may be missing an opportunity to improve data quality on agency reporting through EHRI and enable a less labor intensive and more efficient process.

questions: question: What is official time?
answer: Official time is time spent by federal employees performing certain union representational activities, such as negotiations and handling grievances.
child_questions: question: How are employees on official time payed?
answer: Employees on official time are treated as if they are in a duty status and are paid accordingly.

question: What was OPM's estimate of official time hours?
answer: OPM's estimated total payroll costs, salary and benefits, for fiscal year 2012 official time hours was over $156 million and covered more than 1.2 million employees.
child_questions: question: What was GAO asked to examine regarding OPM?
answer: GAO was asked to review federal rules relating to the use of official time.

questions: question: What does this report examine in regards to OPM?
answer: This report (1) describes the extent of official time use by 10 selected agencies; (2) assesses OPM's cost estimate for official time; and (3) examines OPM's reporting on official time.
child_questions: question: How did GAO obtain information for the report?
answer: GAO obtained usage data from agencies and OPM's annual reports.

question: On what agencies did GAO focus?
answer: For this study, GAO selected 10 agencies (National Science Foundation, Railroad Retirement Board, Social Security Administration, and the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs) representing 47 percent of BU employees covered by OPM's report.
child_questions: question: Why were these agencies chosen?
answer: GAO's selection was based on factors such as agency size, number of BU employees, and official time rate.