II. Detail of Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request

Introduction

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has the legislative responsibility to review the findings of an inspection conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) when the employer cited contests any or all of the findings. OSHRC carries out this responsibility through a 70-person staff located in three offices: Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Georgia, and Denver, Colorado.

The budget proposed for FY 2001 for OSHRC's staff and related administrative expenses is $8,720,000.  The breakdown of this request, as well as a comparison to the FY 2000 appropriation is as follows:

Budget by Major Categories
FY 2000 - FY 2001
(In 000s of dollars)

FY 2000 (Budget) FY 2001 (Request) $ % $ % Personnel Compensation and Benefits 6,850 81% 7,030 81% Non-Payroll 1,620 19% 1,690 19%      Total Obligations 8,470 100% 8,720 100% Full Time Equivalent Positions 73     74

As shown in this table, Personnel Compensation and Benefits are the Agency's largest cost. In FY 2001, Personnel Compensation and Benefits will constitute 81 percent of the amount requested.  This is the same proportion as these costs represent of the amounts available in FY 2000.

In the discussion which follows, the FY 2001 budget request of $8,720,000 is presented from two perspectives: (1) how it supports the three organizational functions into which OSHRC is organized, and (2) how the budget itself will be allocated by object classification category.

FY 2001 Budget, by Organizational Function

This section describes the three functions that the proposed budget supports:

• the Administrative Law Judge function,
• the Commission Review function, and
• the Management and Administrative function.

Each function has a staff assigned exclusively to it, and there is virtually no sharing of staff resources among the functions. This circumstance principally stems from the nature of the Administrative Law Judge and Commission Review functions, which must be separate so that each of these review levels is, both in fact and appearance, independent of each other.  The Management and Administration function, which requires a different type of skill, supports both the Administrative Law Judge and Commission Review functions. Staffing by function is as follows:

Staffing by Function
FY 1999 - FY 2001

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Administrative Law Judge 28.5 28 29 Commission Review 24 27.5 27.5 Management and Administrative 17.5 17.5 17.5      Total 70 73 74

The proposed budget maintains the agency's ability to carry out its mission at the same level as in FY 2000 and funds the proposed across-the-board increases in payroll effective January 2000 and in January 2001. Due to negotiated savings in rent costs, since the release of the FY 2001 President's Budget, the Review Commission proposes to adjust the allocation of its request in order to meet goals under the strategic plan, to retire old and complex cases, expedite decision making on newer cases, and improve services to its customers.  A series of employee details and temporary hires (3 FTE in FY 2000 and an additional one in FY 2001) would be used to assist in expediting the processing of these old and complex cases. These detailees and temporary employees would be used to support in researching cases and to handle the last-in, less complex cases, allowing the more senior attorneys to concentrate on the larger or complex cases.

Administrative Law Judge Function

Function and Major Objective

The function of OSHRC's Administrative Law Judge Division is to conduct formal hearings and related proceedings in a just and expeditious manner in order to meet the Agency's mission of fair and prompt adjudication under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.  While the administrative law judges organizationally report, through the Chief Judge, to the Chairman (who is also one of the three Commissioners appointed by the President), they act independently in arriving at case decisions.

The major objective of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) function is best defined by the Federal Rules of Procedure, which provide that there be a "just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." OSHRC's strives to reduce the time for adjudicating cases, minimize the case backlog, strengthen its settlement procedures, and maintain the success of its E-Z Trial process.  Meeting these objectives is the primary responsibility of the Chief Administrative Law Judge.

The case management process is aided by an automated case tracking system. This technology allows each judge and the Chief Judge to monitor cases continuously from filing to the final decision. The system helps in expediting the processing through standardized letters and helps increase productivity by monitoring of case progress. The system also allows the Executive Director and Chairman to measure progress against Government Performance Review Act goals and provide oversight.

The E-Z Trial procedure allows parties with relatively simple cases to have their "day in court" unencumbered by the myriad rules of procedure and evidence problems typically encountered within the federal rules. Under this process, small businesses with or without counsel can present a case before an impartial judge and receive a swift decision.  Most paperwork, including legal filings, has been eliminated so that justice can be rendered swiftly and inexpensively.

Simultaneous with the expectation of expedited justice in the simpler hearings is the anticipation that the continued increase in the complexity of some cases will command a greater portion of the judges' time, as described in the Summary and Highlights section.  A sampling of these increasingly large or complex cases is shown on page 21.

The complexity of these cases is the result of the existence of any one or a combination of the following:

• the intricacies of the law,
• the number of parties,
• the volume of documents, including transcripts,
• the large number of witnesses (including expert witnesses in such fields as engineering, architecture, construction, soil, physics, epidemiology, pathology, neurology and infectious diseases),
• the length of the trial,
• the large amounts of money involved,
• the number of alleged violations, items, and affirmative defenses (including distinct and separate items),
• the technical, novel, difficult or new standards raised,
• the type of cases, such as those involving air pollution, asbestos, lead poisoning, tuberculosis, and ergonomics, or
• the extensive pre-trial discovery in the largest or most complex cases, including volumes of depositions and interrogatories, conferences, and numerous motions.

This trend presents a challenge to the fulfillment of the objective of achieving a just and speedy decision in each case. OSHRC has responded to this challenge by developing, in FY 1998, a procedure whereby some high-penalty cases may be resolved more quickly.  Under this procedure, all cases appealed to OSHRC where the proposed penalty exceeds $200,000, or where the Chief Judge decides that it is appropriate, will be subject to a formal settlement effort supervised by an ALJ before a trial is scheduled. Fully operational in FY 1999, thirty-seven cases had been assigned to this process as of January 31, 2000. Early results are promising, since its inception, more thank 50% of the cases assigned were settled through this procedure.

In summary, therefore, the factors which impact on OSHRC's success in achieving the objective of a just and speedy trial are: (1) the quantity, magnitude, and nature of the cases, (2) the success of the settlement process initiatives (the E-Z Trial and settlement part process), and  (3) the number of trials held, and their length and complexity.  Although these factors are not wholly within OSHRC's control, the Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance Plan acknowledge that OSHRC is to work within such constraints to improve its service to the public.

Proceedings Before the Review Commission's Administrative Law Judges

The events leading to the presentation of an OSHA case before an OSHRC ALJ follows an established procedure. To contest all or part of a citation, penalty, or abatement period an employer must file a notice of contest within 15 working days from the receipt of the citation proposed by OSHA.  The Secretary of Labor transmits the notice of contest and all relevant documents to the Review Commission's Executive Secretary for filing.  After the case is docketed, it is forwarded to the Office of the Chief Judge who monitors the process to ensure that the receipt of the complaint and answer is made in a timely manner. Prior to the joinder of pleadings, the Chief Judge responds to all motions directed toward the proceeding, including motions to dismiss, motions for extensions of time, motions for summary judgement, and motions for stay of proceedings.  After the issues are joined, the case is assigned, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, to an Administrative Law Judge. The case is assigned to an Administrative Law Judge in the Review Commission office closest to where the alleged violation occurred. Thereafter, the ALJ has full responsibility for all pre-hearing and pre-trial procedures, including settlement, where the parties are in agreement, and is charged with providing a fair and impartial hearing in an expeditious manner, and rendering a decision promptly.

Anticipated ALJ Workload for FY 2001

While OSHA recently projected that it expects to conduct 35,600 inspections in FY 2001.  OSHRC caseload will be affected more by OSHA's focus on the highest hazard workplaces and most serious workplace hazards. This strategy has already added to the Review Commission's workload with larger or more complex cases.  OSHRC judges have to spend more time handling pre-trial motions, more time in the courtroom, and more time researching and writing decisions. These larger cases with higher penalties or more complex cases are much more likely to go to trial and, when they do, the trials last much longer. These cases challenge our resources and increase the average time it takes to complete cases.

The table on page 20 shows projected, as well as recent, case activity.  As shown in this table, the level of inspections by OSHA, combined with the focus on large-scale and alleged willful violators of health and safety regulations, is expected to result in an increase in new cases appealed to OSHRC -- from 2,106 cases in FY 1998 to 2,550 cases in FY 2001.  Given the expansion in the dollar limits allowable for E-Z Trial dispositions (up from $10,000 to $20,000), the settlement judges' procedure for large or complex cases, and other factors such as improved case management through technological improvements, case dispositions by ALJs are expected to be about 2,450 in FY 2001. This represents an increase of 7 percent over the FY 1998 case disposition level of 2,285.

A net increase in productivity per judge is expected to result from the reduction in case cycle time.  Productivity would be projected to be even higher were it not for the trend of increases in cases having proposed penalties of $50,000 or more (the large complex cases).  These larger dollar value or complex cases are expected to increase to 364 in the budget year, a 12% increase over the estimated level in FY 2000 but well below the 23% increase in this type of case between FY 1998 and FY 1999.

Staffing and Case Production

Of the total 74 FTEs requested, 29 are required for the Administrative Law Judge function, one more than available for the current year. This staff level includes the employment of fourteen Administrative Law Judges and 15 staff attorneys and other support staff. Given the number of inspections occurring in FY 1999 and projected by OSHA for future years, OSHRC believes that this is the minimum number of FTEs needed to address the expected workload.

Staff Needs for Fiscal Year 2001

It must be stressed that additional administrative duties will be required of the Chief Judge in Washington, D.C. and the senior judges (first judges) in each of the two regional offices as a result of performance targets in the fiscal year 2001 performance plan.  The Chief Judge in particular, will be managing the effort to reduce cycle times in conventionally tried cases and cases tried without a hearing, appointing settlement judges for larger cases, and expanding the use of E-Z Trial.  The increase in administrative duties makes it even more essential that the positions and budget requested be provided by the FY 2001 budget. It would be difficult for the Commission to meet these performance objectives at less than the requested level of staffing.

ALJ Case History and Activity
FY 1998 through FY 2001

FY 1998 Actual FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Estimate FY 2001 Estimate 1. OSHA Inspections 34,443 34,342 34,500 35,600 2. New Cases 2,106 2,324 2,450 2,550      Cases over $50,000 235 290 325 364 3. Administrative Law Judge      a. Case Inventory, Start of Year 1,021 842 985 1,060      b. New Cases 2,106 2,324 2,450 2,550      c. Total Caseload 3,127 3,166 3,435 3,610      d. Disposals          (1) With Hearing 158 156 170 170          (2) Without Hearing 2,127 2,025 2,205 2,280      e. Total Dispositions 2,285 2,181 2,375 2,450 4. Total Case Inventory, End of Year 842 985 1,060 1,160

Sampling of Recent Complex Cases

North Atlantic Fish Company: Four willful, two repeat and approximately 30 serious alleged violations in one of New England's largest fish processing plants. Highly complex issues of machine guarding with highly dangerous cutting and processing equipment. Numerous employees have lost fingers or parts of fingers in the use of machines.  The hearing is expected to last at least two weeks.

Costal Lumber Company: Penalties totaling $245,000 are proposed in this case in which a machine at a large commercial lumber mill was energized by an employee while, unknown to him, another employee was working at it.  The worker lost both legs in the accident.  Trial, with several experts in machine design and engineering, is anticipated to last at least one week.

Burrows Paper Company: Seven serious, two willful and one repeat violations are alleged in a plant which manufactures containers for the fast food industry.  Penalties of almost $250,000 are proposed.  Machine guarding and lockout/tagout violations are centered around two large (city block long) machines which are operated by a "crew" of several people at once. There have been several injuries and there is a prior history of violations involving at least one of the cited machines. There is an allegation that supervision in the plant deliberately withheld lockout equipment from employees who requested it.

Fiore Construction: Three willful trenching violations alleged to have been found within days of each other in several different locations in which Respondent was performing its operations.

Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.: Two citations, one serious and one willful, alleging violations of the standards involving personal protective equipment, confined space program, energy control procedures, lockout/tagout and training programs.  The proposed penalty is $207,500.

Alliance Construction Co.: Alleged violations during a fatality investigation of a trenching site. Two alleged willful trenching violations each assessed at $70,000. Serious citation issued for alleged training and stairway violations, assessed at $5,000.  An ongoing investigation is being undertaken by the Justice Department.

Amerway, Inc.: Violations alleged arising from employee exposure to lead. Eight serious, thirteen willful and two other citations issued with a proposed penalty of approximately $170,000.
Elgin Roofing Company: This case involves the fall protection standards.  The citation alleges numerous serious and willful violations, and proposed penalties of $216,000. The trial is expected to be lengthy.

Fieldbrook Farms, Inc.: This is a consolidated proceeding involving approximately 60 alleged serious and willful violations and proposed penalties exceeding $200,000. There are both safety and health violations alleged in the case.

ACF Industries, Inc.: The magnitude and complexity of this case distinguish it from other pending proceedings. The case involves approximately 28 alleged serious, willful and repeat violations with a proposed penalty of over $125,000. A union is an active litigant in this proceeding.

Major Construction Company: The Secretary alleges sixteen serious and ten willful violations of various standards. Extensive discovery is in progress with a lengthy trial expected.

Southern Pan Services Co.: The case involves allegations of one serious and ten willful-egregious violations involved in leading edge work in structural steel construction. Extensive discovery is in progress.  The trial is expected to last between two and three weeks with a substantial amount of expert testimony on the issue of feasibility.

Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.: The two alleged willful violations in this case involve an explosion at the Respondent's manufacturing plant in Louisiana. The alleged violations relate to prevention of explosion and fire and the employees' escape from these hazards. The trial is expected to last at least one week with both sides presenting expert testimony.

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.: This case involves 37 serious, four repeat, and nine other violations alleging guarding, electrical and scaffolding hazards. The proposed penalty is $140,200.

TDK Ferrites Corporation: This case involves eight serious, two willful and other alleged violations of the standards regarding ladders, electrical items and employee exposure to methylene chloride.  The proposed penalty is $156,900.

Ametek, Inc.: This case involves eleven serious and three repeat violations alleged of the standards concerning confined space, lockout/tagout and guarding.  The proposed penalty is $117,000.

Goex, Inc.: This case involves thirteen serious, three willful and other violations alleged concerning process safety management and electrical and hazard communications.  The proposed penalty is $176,000.

CMS Hartzell: The case involves allegations of one general duty clause violation, fifteen additional serious violations and seven willful violations. The proposed penalty is $180,000.  Extensive discovery is in progress and significant prehearing motions are anticipated. The trial is anticipated to last two weeks.

The Service Company: This case involves three alleged serious violations, at each of sixteen different locations and alleged repeat violations at four locations. Additionally, there are five willful violations alleged at six locations in another case. The total proposed penalties for the two cases amounts to $390,000. Extensive discovery is in progress. The trial will last at least three weeks.

Northwestern Steel & Wire Company: Crane overloading is alleged. The total proposed penalty is $630,000.  Extensive pretrial activity is required.  If tried, the case would require one-two weeks.

Excel Corporation: The case involves 53 citations, including alleged serious and willful violations. The proposed penalty is $315,000. If tried, the trial would last at least two weeks.

Qualitech Steel Corporation: Thirteen serious and one willful violations are alleged with a proposed penalty of $85,500. Extensive discovery and pre trial preparation are expected. Trial will last approximately one week.

Commission Review

Function and Major Objective

The function of the Commissioners is to adjudicate cases contested under the Act, subsequent to an initial decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). This secondary, higher level of review must also be both prompt and responsive to the rights of the parties.

This higher level of review is accomplished by the three Presidentially-appointed Commissioners, one of whom is the Chairman of OSHRC, with the staff support of the Office of the General Counsel. The Chairman and the two Commissioners review cases selected by them to merit further consideration, thereby affording the parties to the case a second opportunity for their views to be considered at the highest administrative levels.

The 1997-2002 Strategic Plan established a major objective of reducing the length of time needed to process and decide cases selected for review, while maintaining the quality of written decisions.  This objective is also reflected in the targets for the 2001 annual performance plan.  This is being pursued through reengineering of the internal processes by which a case is prepared, aided by improved case management technology.

Procedural Background

As mentioned previously, OSHRC performs an adjudicatory function independent from the enforcement and rule-making functions vested in the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Disputed enforcement proceedings are tried initially before the Review Commission's ALJs. Decisions by the Commission's ALJs may then be reviewed by the Commission itself, a three-member appellate body.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 provides that each of the Commissioners be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve a six-year term. The Commissioners sit as an appellate review body with discretionary authority to review any case decided by the Review Commission's ALJs. Each Commission member has the authority to review any case decided by any judge and may, by a single vote, direct that a particular case be heard by the full Commission. Absent such a direction, the decisions of the ALJs become final by operation of law. Once directed for review, the Commission members have authority to review all aspects of a case, including judges' conclusions of law, findings of fact, penalty assessments and abatement schedules.

Each Commissioner's Counsel is responsible for providing assistance and advice on all pending matters, including the proper disposition of cases and motions and whether cases are appropriate for full Commission review.  Each Counsel also aids the Commissioner in researching and editing draft opinions.  Their work complements the work of the General Counsel. The General Counsel has primary responsibility for presenting cases to the Commission for disposition and for preparing the initial drafts of the Commission's opinions.

Staffing

The FY 2001 budget requests funding for nine FTEs for the Commissioners and their immediate staff (each Commissioner has a counsel and a confidential assistant) and 18.5 FTEs in the General Counsel's office, for a total of 27.5 FTEs.

Production of cases in the Commission Review function has been plagued in recent years by vacancies among the three Commissioners. In the FY 1996-1999 period, three Commissioners were on board for only approximately twelve months out of thirty-six. For more than ten months in FY 1998, only one Commissioner was on board.  For the remainder of the FY 1996-1999 period, the Commission operated with only two Commissioners. The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires a vote of two Commissioners to take official action. With only one Commissioner, no cases can be decided. Even when two Commissioners are available to vote, deadlocks can occur which prevent rendering a decision.  As a result, case production has suffered substantially during the FY 1996-1999 period.  At present, the Commission has a full complement of Commissioners who are expected to be in place throughout FY 2000.  We are working hard to raise the levels of case production, to resolve the older cases that have accumulated as a result of quorum problems, and to turn around new cases promptly.

One challenge that the Commission faces in the review docket is the resolution and issuance of decisions in very large and complex cases. The Commission now has 21 cases pending in this category.  Most are older cases that date back to the time when we did not have a full complement of Commissioners, which made decisions more difficult to reach.  Preparation of each of these cases consumes a huge amount of attorney and Commissioner time, slowing work on other cases. In response to this problem, the Commission has adopted a very rigorous schedule of meetings, at which cases are tentatively decided. Four of the 21 large and complex cases are in the draft decision stage and nine more have been prepared for consideration. Balanced production and consideration of newer cases, however, compete for precious work time at the entire review level.

We have already seen an increase in productivity.  During FY 1999, when the Commission had a quorum for approximately a nine month period, there were 43 dispositions as compared to only 13 dispositions in FY 1998. Eighteen of the 43 dispositions (42%) occurred during the last three months of the fiscal year.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of General Counsel and Commissioners' Productivity

FY 1998 Actual FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Estimate FY 2001 Estimate 1. New Cases (a + b)      a. Cases Directed for Review 43 31 45 52      b. Other New cases 4 5 4 3          (1)  Interlocutory Appeals (0) (2) (1) (1)          (2)  Remands (2) (3) (2) (1)          (3)  Other (2)   (1) (1)      c. Total New Cases (a + b) 47 36 49 55 2. Case Inventory from Prior Year 38 72 65 54 3. Total Caseload (1 + 2) 85 108 114 109 4. Dispositions 13 43 60 60      a. Final Decisions Issued (9) (24) (50) (50)      b. Other Dispositions (4) (19) (10) (10) 5. Case Backlog, End of Year (3 - 5) 72 65 54 49

Management and Administration

Function and Major Objective

The function and major objective of Management and Administration is to provide executive management and administrative support services for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, to assure its success in fulfilling its mission.

The Management and Administrative function provides strategic planning and operational management of the organization, including docketing, technology management, procurement of goods and services, payroll and personnel services, training, and materiel and space needs for each of the offices.  The aim is to ensure that headquarters staff and regional office staffs can carry out their case review responsibilities with adequate administrative support. These responsibilities include developing and implementing internal policies and procedures, as well as meeting short-term service requirements.  Management and Administration also includes the public information function which facilitates communication with the public.

The broad multi-year responsibilities of Management and Administration were reflected in the development of the 1997 Strategic Plan, upon which many reinvention initiatives undertaken in recent years have been based. Specifically, the Strategic Plan emphasizes (1) investing in technology to make tasks easier and improve timeliness and process quality, (2) continuous training of all employees, (3) revamped processes and procedures, such as E-Z Trial, to reduce case cycle times and improve service quality, and (4) workplace improvements aimed at improving employee morale and commitment to the agency's mission.

The FY 2001 Performance Plan presented to OMB and the Congress with the fiscal year 2001 budget builds upon the Strategic Plan. It provides evidence of the continuing efforts by the Management and Administration function to plan for the long-term success of the agency.

The specific day-to-day tasks that Management and Administration performs, under the direction of the Executive Director, include:

• formulating and presenting OSHRC's annual budget request,
• controlling the obligation and disbursement of funds,
• maintaining a personnel function, including establishing and implementing personnel policies and hiring and promoting employees,
• procuring goods and services,
• maintaining repair of furniture and equipment,
• maintaining a public information office, including providing case decisions to the public,
• maintaining a library for legal and technical research,
• providing travel assistance to Administrative Law Judges and others,
• implementing improved computerized case management and financial systems through hardware and software purchases,
• docketing incoming cases resulting from OSHA appeals and communicating with the public in general and case parties in particular, and
• responding to requests of or fulfilling responsibilities to other executive agencies and Congress.

Strategic Plan 1997-2001

The major objective of providing timely and maximum administrative support to the organization's clients and employees is underscored in the strategic plans prepared by OSHRC. The 1995 Strategic Plan, prepared prior to the GPRA requirement, targeted cost reduction and increased productivity through technological improvements and reengineered processes.  The 1997 Strategic Plan, building upon its predecessor, has begun to produce additional improvements. Accomplishments stemming from these plans to date include:

• Operating costs exclusive of staff year reductions have been reduced by more than $300,000 on an annual basis.
• A regional office was closed in fiscal year 1996, its work absorbed by other offices, and a permanent savings of at least $140,000 per year was achieved.  In FY 1999, a second regional office was closed, producing $125,000 in additional in savings.
• Two user-friendly "guides" explaining Review Commission procedures, including one on the E-Z Trial Procedure, have been published and have been widely disseminated.  These are provided to litigants before the Review Commission.  An E-Z Trial video that demonstrates the simplicity of this procedure was produced and is also provided to litigants.
• A new case management tracking system was developed and implemented. It replaced a less useful system.
• Reproduction equipment and most other operating equipment have been upgraded, achieving significant internal labor savings, product quality improvements, and enhanced service to the public.
• Training needs of all Review Commission employees were identified through a survey process with supervisory input, and OSHRC has begun to meet the identified needs, particularly in the areas of computer technology, and technical and legal training for judges and attorneys.
• The employee award and recognition system was revised and includes a comprehensive array of chairman, individual, and team awards.
• A wide area computer network has been completed, linking all employees via e-mail, providing all legal and administrative staff with on-line research capability, and providing up-to-date case information.
• A compressed work schedule was implemented to make the Review Commission more family-friendly.
• The first-ever financial statement audit was conducted by an independent accounting firm, and an unqualified opinion on OSHRC's FY 1996 statements was received. A subsequent audit of fiscal year 1998's statements also received an unqualified opinion.
• Objectives of the strategic plan have been incorporated into all performance evaluation plans for all employees rated.
• A website has been developed, which receives approximately 20,000 hits every month, providing ready access Review Commission decisions and procedural rules and guidance.
• A draft union and employee guide outlining OSHRC rules and procedures was developed and placed on the OSHRC website for comment.

OSHRC's 1997-2001 Strategic Plan will be revised in September 2000.  Under the direction of the Executive Director, the objectives and targets of the strategic plan and Annual Performance Plan are being vigorously pursued.  The Management and Administration staff will be monitoring and measuring outcomes of the new plan's initiatives.  This will require an additional level of effort for this staff as it carries out its normal tasks of providing payroll, travel, and goods and services to the organization.

Staffing

OSHRC requests 17.5 FTEs for the Administrative and Management function in FY 2001, the same number as in the two preceding fiscal years. These positions consist of the Executive Director and her administrative assistant, a Management Information Systems (computer systems) officer and an assistant, a public information officer and assistant, the Executive Secretary and three legal clerks, and the Director of the Office of Financial and Administrative Services and six administrative, personnel, procurement, and, financial accounting positions. Additionally, a part-time librarian position exists.

The normal duties and responsibilities of the Management and Administration staff have been augmented in the past year by the requirement to implement, on a day-to-day basis, certain objectives of the strategic and performance plans. The Executive Director has continuing responsibility for achieving the external communication objectives such as further development of the website, enhancing the case management/case tracking system. The Executive Director also has responsibility for implementing an internal financial management system, determining needs and obtaining training for all staff, strengthening the performance appraisal and employment rewards system, measuring productivity in meeting annual performance targets, and preparing reports that assess -- and make recommendations for changing -- objectives and performance targets.

The Executive Director would manage the effort to enhance our website to include older Review Commission decisions, to improve search capability of cases on the website, and to provide links to appropriate state sites. This function is also responsible for the development of the Intranet. Plans are for 50 percent of the Intranet to be installed by FY 2001, and full installation by FY 2002. A reduction in staff for this function may compromise the effort to achieve performance targets.

FY 2001 Budget by Object Classification Category

For FY 2001, OSHRC requests, $8,720,000 3 percent above the FY 2000 enacted level. The staff size authorized would be 74 FTEs.  At the time the President's budget was prepared, the largest portion of the increase was based on an anticipated increase in rent and on increased salaries and benefits costs resulting from the assumed pay raise. OSHRC has since negotiated significant reductions in rent costs.  We propose to apply the savings to 3 additional FTEs in FY 2000 and one additional FTE in FY 2001. We also propose to obtain services to enhance our website to include older Review Commission decisions, to improve search capability of cases on the website, and to provide links to appropriate state sites.  We expect to return to our normal staffing of 70 FTEs in FY 2002.

The proposed budget by object classification category is shown in the table below, along with the current year budget. A narrative explanation of the amounts requested for each object classification follows the table.

Object Classification Table
for the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001
($ in 000s)

Change  FY 2000-2001 Object Class FY 2000 FY 2001 $ % 11.1 Full Time Permanent Positions 5,848 6,038 +190 +3 11.5 Other Compensation 25 25 0 0            Sub-total 5,873 6,063 +190 +3 12.1 Benefits to Personnel 937 967 +30 +3 13.0 Benefits to Former Personnel 40 0 -40 -100 21.0 Travel 115 115 0 0 22.0 Transportation of Things 7 7 0 0 23.1 Rental Payments to GSA 728 750 +22 +3 23.2 Rents, Communications, Utilities, and Miscellaneous 50 50 0 0 24.0 Printing 23 29 +6 +26 25.0 Other Services 431 441 +10 +2 25.1 Services by Other Federal Agencies 78 78 0 0 25.3 Repair and Maintenance of Equipment 26 26 0 0 26.0 Supplies 112 112 0 0 31.0 Equipment 50 82 +32 +64              Total 8,470 8,720 +250 +3

11.1 Full Time Permanent Positions

Change FY 2000-FY 2001 FY 2000 FY 2001 Amount % $5,848,000 $6,038,000 +$190,000 +3

For fiscal year 2001 an amount of $5,848,000 is requested to fund the direct payroll costs of a staff of 74 employees, one more than funded in FY 2000. This amount includes the effect of the assumed general pay raise due in January of 2001, scheduled within-grade increases, and an estimated $20,000 to cover one-time payments for unused annual leave if employees separate from government service. The request also reflects that there is one day less of pay in FY 2001 than in FY 2000.  As noted above, at the time the President's budget was prepared OSHRC anticipated an increase in rent.  OSHRC has since negotiated significant reductions in rent costs.  We propose to apply the savings to 3 additional FTEs in FY 2000 and one additional FTE in FY 2001. These detailees and temporary employees would be used to provide support in researching cases. The employees would also handle the last-in, less complex cases, allowing the more senior attorneys to concentrate on the larger or complex cases.

All authorized positions are expected to be filled at the start of the fiscal year, and any positions becoming vacant during the year will need to be filled quickly.  The net effect of these two expectations is that the entire amount requested will be needed.

11.5 Other Compensation

Change FY 2000-FY 2001 FY 2000 FY 2001 Amount % $25,000 $25,000 -0- -0-

Consistent with OSHRC's encouragement of individual employee initiative and performance, $25,000 is requested to provide funds to reward employees for superior performance or special acts or services.  Cash awards are a necessary incentive in OSHRC's continuing effort to improve the quality and timeliness of its work product, which in turn, contributes to overall agency efforts to accomplish its Annual Performance Plan objectives.

12.1 Personnel Benefits

Change FY 2000-FY 2001 FY 2000 FY 2001 Amount % $937,000 $967,000 +$30,000 +3

An amount of $967,000 is needed to fund the payroll-related costs of employee benefits in FY 2001. These benefits principally consist of the government's contribution to the CSRS and FERS retirement programs, life and health insurance programs, and the Thrift Savings Program.  The request reflects the increase in the government contribution rates for the CSRS and FERS program and a decrease in funds to make payments to former employees under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.

13.0 Benefits to Former Personnel