We also reviewed alternative dispute resolution initiatives used at various Federal courts and established quality standards for handling nonadjudicative processes.

The mission of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission is to provide an impartial forum for the just and prompt adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes involving the Department of Labor, employers, and employees, and/or their representatives under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Vision Statement

The Review Commission continues to strive to be:

a quasi-judicial body that is -- and is recognized for being -- objective, fair, prompt, and professional;

an agency that creates a body of law through its decisions that define and explain the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970;

a model federal agency with highly effective processes, a highly motivated, qualified and diverse workforce, and modern information management, communications, and administrative systems; and

an agency that values team work, develops its employees, and strives to improve its performance, service, and value to the American people.

Fiscal Year 2000-2005 Strategic Plan Goals

In 1997, the Review Commission established goals to effectively accomplish its mission. The agency defined two broad external goals to improve the agency’s service to and its communication with its stakeholders and the public and three operational goals -- Information Technology, Human Resource, and Quality Management. When the Review Commission issued its Revised Strategic Plan for 2000-2005, the agency modified and realigned its performance goals. The Review Commission continued its two broad external goals to improve the agency’s service to and communications with its stakeholders and the public. However, the agency combined the three operational goals into one operational goal to align more closely with the overall mission of the agency.

Public Service Goal: To assure fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its judges, and achieve a high level of quality in all legal decisions

External Communications Goal: To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of communications between the Commission and the public it serves

Organizational Goal: To further develop and invest in a highly effective, motivated, and diverse workforce equipped with modern information, technology, and communications systems to facilitate the accomplishment of its goals, meet program needs and increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency

For each strategic goal and its related objectives, the Review Commission formulated performance measures and annual targets, numerical whenever possible. A few measures are necessarily qualitative in nature. Case processing and adjudication measurements are used for several objectives contained in our Public Service Goal. Most of the data related to the Public Service Goal resides in the Review Commission’s case management/tracking system. In FY 2002, each of the more than 2,100 new cases filed with the agency was entered into the case management system, and progress on all cases was tracked. In order to assure the quality of the data, management periodically reviews the information in the case management/tracking system. The agency conducts test runs of the data to ensure that information is input and updated on a timely basis. Semi-annual and annual reviews are conducted by the appropriate managers to ensure the accuracy of the data, to monitor performance goals and progress, and produce reports. The reports are used to assess workload and make workload adjustments, when necessary. At the end of the year, this data is used by the offices to measure performance related to the goal and improve program management.

Program Evaluation

The Review Commission contracted for an independent evaluation to be completed in FY 2002 for its computer and information security, consistent with the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 106-398), including Title X, subtitle G, Government Information Security Reform Act. This independent evaluation revealed that there were no material weaknesses in policy, procedures or practices present, but provided recommendations for improvement of the agency’s security program and plan. Some of the recommendations involved developing a process for using system development life cycle models for present and future systems and applications, modifying or supplementing existing security policies, and ensuring technical controls for hardware are improved to strengthen the agency’s security posture. The agency is using the recommendations from the review to develop management initiatives.

In addition, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Office of Merit Systems Oversight & Effectiveness, conducted an onsite evaluation of the agency’s human resource management program. OPM focused on the agency’s strategic alignment, workforce planning and deployment, leadership and knowledge management, performance culture, talent and accountability. Overall, OPM found that the agency’s human capital program promotes mission accomplishment within merit system principles, and that the agency had effective programs in place for the specific areas reviewed by OPM.

Public Service Goal

To assure fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of disputes brought before the Commission and its judges, and achieve a high level of quality in all legal decisions          

1.1       Increase the percent of non-complex cases disposed of with hearing that are disposed of within 325 days at the ALJ level.

             ●          FY 2002 Indicator/Target: Complete 75 percent of non-complex cases disposed of with hearing within 325 days from the date of assignment to a judge. TARGET MET. Seventy-seven percent of cases were completed within the targeted time frame.

1.2       Increase the percent of complex cases disposed of with hearing that are disposed of within 18 months at the ALJ level.

             ●          FY 2002 Indicator/Target: Complete 75 percent of complex cases¹ disposed of with hearing within 540 days from the date of assignment to a judge. TARGET MET. Ninety-two percent of cases were completed within the targeted time frame.

1.3       Increase the percent of cases that are disposed of without a hearing that are disposed of within six months at the ALJ level.

            ●          FY 2002 Indicator/Target: Seventy-five percent of ALJ cases disposed of without hearing are disposed of within 180 days. TARGET MET. Seventy-seven percent of cases were completed within the targeted time frame.

1.4       Increase the percent of cases that are disposed of without a hearing that are disposed of in one year at the ALJ level.

            ●          FY 2002 Target: Ninety-nine percent of the cases closed without a hearing are resolved within 365 days. TARGET NOT MET. The agency came close to meeting this goal - 98 percent of cases were disposed of without hearing within 365 days. The agency failed to meet this target by 41 cases. In terms of number of cases that were actually disposed of without hearing in FY 2002, this is a small margin. The performance goal was set at an approximate level and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Excluding the complex cases, cases that originated from remote locations, and the cases that were stayed from processing pending ongoing federal criminal proceedings, the Review Commission resolved 99 percent of cases in less than a year.

1.5 Increase percent of Commission-level dispositions issued within 325 days.

             ●     FY 2002 Indicator/Target: Fifty-five percent of new Commission-level cases are decided within 325 days of being directed for review. TARGET NOT MET. Forty-three percent of decisions (nine cases )were disposed of within 325 days of being directed for review. This was a considerable accomplishment, particularly since the Commission had a quorum for only four months this fiscal year. The Commission did not meet its goal because of the lack of a quorum for eight months in FY 2002. This circumstance is beyond the control of the agency. In December 2001, a recess appointment expired, leaving the Commission with only one member, for eight months in FY 2002. By statute, cases can only be decided by the affirmative vote of two commissioners. Thus, the Commission could not decide and dispose of cases from January 2002, until August 25, 2002. During that time, new cases came in. After the arrival of the new Chairman in September, the Commission disposed of four cases in the last month of FY 2002.

1.6       Reduce by a percent the number of cases pending Commission-level disposition for more than two years.

             ●     FY 2002 Indicator/Target: Thirty percent reduction in the number of cases pending Commission-level dispositions for more than two years. TARGET NOT MET. There was a 22 percent reduction in the number of such cases. The Commission disposed of five cases that were older than two years. The Commission did not meet its goal because it lost its quorum of commissioners, and therefore, it also lost the ability to decide cases. By statute, cases can only be decided by the affirmative vote of two commissioners. For most of FY 2002, only one commissioner’s position was filled. In December 2001, a recess appointment expired, leaving the Commission with only one member for eight months in FY 2002. Cycle time is not adjusted when the Commission is without a quorum. As a result, not only were very few cases disposed of in FY 2002 within the performance goal period, but also, all other pending cases continued to mature creating a larger inventory of older cases.

The positive effort that the Commission was able to obtain from July 2000 through December 2001, was curtailed with the loss of commissioners.² However, since November 2002, the Commission has had three members. The retirement of older, very large and complex cases continues to be a priority, even though adjudicating these cases may impact negatively on the other performance target for Commission-level decisions – the adjudication of newer cases directed for review. Preparation of each of these cases consumes a huge amount of Commissioner and attorney time, and limits consideration of new cases. While progress is being made with these very large complex and older cases, consideration is being given to revising our performance measures for Commission-level goals (1.5 and 1.6) to reflect the need to ensure the prompt adjudication of cases.