The Review Commission is an independent, adjudicatory agency created by the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970. Its sole statutory mandate is to serve as an administrative court
providing just and expeditious resolution of disputes involving OSHA, employers charged with
violations of Federal safety and health standards, and employees and/or their representatives.
The Review Commission was created by Congress as an agency completely independent of the
Department of Labor to ensure that OSHA's enforcement actions are carried out in accordance
with the law and that all parties are treated consistent with due process should a dispute arise.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Review Commission's Rules of Procedure
provide two levels of adjudication when an employer timely contests an OSHA citation for
alleged violations of the Act or failure to abate such alleged violations. The first is a trial level,
which affords an opportunity for a hearing before a Review Commission Administrative Law
Judge. The judge's decision becomes final unless the decision is directed for review to the
Commission. The second level is a discretionary appellate review of the judge's decision by the
Commission members. Both before its judges and the Commissioners, the Review Commission
provides fair and impartial adjudication of cases concerning the safety and health of employees'
working conditions in the United States.
The principal (national) office of the Review Commission is located in Washington, D.C. There
are also regional offices in Atlanta and Denver.
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.
- an agency that values team work, develops its employees, and strives to improve its
performance, service, and value to the American people.
Strategic Goals
The Review Commission has three strategic goals:
Goal #1: 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
Goal #2: External Communications Goal: To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
communications between the Commission and the public it serves
Goal #3: 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
NOTE: The Review Commission revised its Strategic Plan in October 2000. Copies of the
previous and revised plans appear in our website: www.oshrc.gov. A copy of the strategies in
our revised plan appears under section IV of this document. The Review Commission also
revised its FY 2001 Final Annual Performance Plan, and a copy appears under section V of this
document.
III. Budget Request
and
Annual Performance Plan
by
Organizational function
FY 2002 Budget Request and Annual Performance Plan
by Organizational Function
This section describes the three functions of the Review Commission:
- Administrative Law Judge function,
- the Commission function, and
- the Management and Administration function.
Each function has a staff assigned exclusively to it, and there is virtually no sharing of staff
resources between the functions. This circumstance principally stems from the nature of the
Administrative Law Judge and Commission functions, which must be separate so that each of
these review levels is, both in fact and appearance, independent of the other. The Management
and Administration function supports both the Administrative Law Judge and Commission
functions.
Budget by Major Categories
FY 2001 - FY 2002
(In 000s of dollars)
|
FY 2001 (CY) |
FY 2002 (BY) |
|
$ |
% |
$ |
% |
Personnel Compensation and Benefits |
7,030 |
80.1% |
7,274 |
81.1% |
Non-Payroll |
1,690 |
19.9% |
1,690 |
18.9% |
Total Obligations |
8,720 |
100% |
8,964 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Full Time Equivalent Positions |
72 |
|
70 |
|
Personnel Compensation and Benefits are the Agency's largest cost. In FY 2002, Personnel
Compensation and Benefits will constitute 81.1 percent of the amount requested. This
proportion is 1 percent greater than in FY 2001 and reflects the impact of the January 2001 and
2002 pay raises.
The request would allow the Review Commission to begin the implementation of a workforce
succession plan. Twenty-five percent of the Review Commission's permanent staff can retire
now. By the end of FY 2003, 53 percent of the permanent staff will be able to retire. Seventy-five percent of our Administrative Law Judges, can retire now. Similarly, one third of our
attorneys could retire by the end of FY 2003.
Staffing by function is as follows:
FTE by Function |
|
FY 2001
Est. |
FY 2002
Est. |
Administrative Law Judge |
29 |
29 |
Commission |
25.5 |
23.5 |
Management and Administration |
17.5 |
17.5 |
Total |
72 |
70 |
Administrative Law Judge Function
Function
The function of the Review Commission's Administrative Law Judge Division is to conduct
formal hearings and related proceedings in a fair, just, and expeditious manner. The function is
directly related to our public service goal.
The Administrative Law Judges report organizationally, through the Chief Judge, to the
Chairman. However, they act independently in arriving at case decisions. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which we follow, provide guidelines for managing cases. The rules require a
"just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action."
Proceedings Before the Review Commission's Administrative Law Judges
The events leading to the presentation of an OSHA case before a Review Commission
Administrative Law Judge follow 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 and assigns the case to an Administrative Law Judge. The case is generally assigned
to an Administrative Law Judge in the Review Commission office closest to where the alleged
violation occurred. Thereafter, the Administrative Law Judge has full responsibility for all pre-hearing and pre-trial procedures, including settlement, and is charged with providing a fair and
impartial hearing in an expeditious manner, and rendering a decision promptly.
Administrative Law Judge Operations
The Review Commission strives to increase the percent of cases adjudicated, strengthen its
settlement procedures and case management responsibilities, and maintain the success of its E-Z
Trial and Settlement Part processes. The Administrative Law Judge function also has to address
a caseload which is becoming more complex. Achieving these ends is the primary responsibility
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
OSHA's emphasis during recent years on more serious workplace hazards, and the consequent
increase in proposed penalties, has translated into more complicated cases, and more costly
trials. These cases command a greater portion of the judges' time. The Review Commission
anticipates that this trend will continue.
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 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 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 types of cases, such as those involving air pollution, asbestos, lead poisoning,
tuberculosis, or 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 goal of achieving a just and prompt decision in each case.
In FY 1999, the Review Commission piloted a mandatory settlement process known as the
"Settlement Part" to handle large cases. The "Settlement Part" requires formal settlement efforts
where the proposed penalty is $200,000 or over, or if the Chief Judge finds that a case is
appropriate for this part because of its complexity. Such cases have a higher probability of going
to trial, and when they do, they are likely to take more than two years to resolve under our
conventional process. In FY 2000, 42 cases were assigned to "Settlement Part." In FY 1999, the
settlement procedure resulted in the settlement of a majority of the cases assigned to the program.
A formal evaluation of the program was completed in September 2000. The evaluation showed
generally positive results, including substantial satisfaction among the program's users.
Accordingly, the Commission voted to make the program permanent. The Chairman will
continue to monitor the program to ensure its effectiveness.
The E-Z Trial process allows parties with relatively simple cases to have their "day in court"
unencumbered by the myriad rules of procedure and evidence while assuring that due process
requirements are maintained. 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. The
process is intended to reduce the time and legal expenses to employers contesting relatively small
penalty cases. The process also allows more time for Administrative Law Judges to address the
more complex cases.
The Review Commission expects to continue the use of the E-Z Trial process and to evaluate its
effectiveness in FY 2001.
E-Z Trial Case Activity
FY 1998 through FY 2002
|
FY 1998 |
FY 1999 |
FY 2000 |
FY 2001 |
FY 2002 |
|
Actual |
Actual |
Actual |
Est. |
Est. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Cases |
2,124 |
2,324 |
2,407 |
2,500 |
2,500 |
Cases assigned to E-Z Trial |
611 |
733 |
934 |
975 |
975 |
The proportion of new cases assigned to the E-Z Trial process increased over the last three years.
We estimate that the proportion of cases assigned to the program in FY 2001 and FY 2002 will
be relatively stable.
Anticipated Administrative Law Judge Workload for FY 2002
Three major factors impact on this function's workload: (1) the quantity, magnitude, and nature
of the cases, (2) the success of the process initiatives (the E-Z Trial and Settlement Part
processes), and (3) the number of trials held, and their length and complexity.
OSHA recently projected that it expects to conduct 36,400 inspections in FY 2002. The Review
Commission's caseload will be affected not only by the number of inspections but by OSHA's
focus on the highest hazard workplaces and most serious workplace hazards. These inspections
could result in more complex cases. These complex cases consume extensive judicial time since
the discovery process is lengthy and time consuming, motion practice is expanded, legal research
and decision writing time is protracted and, of necessity, the trial process is elongated and
complicated.
Administrative Law Judge Case Activity
FY 1998 through FY 2002
|
|
|
|
FY 1998 |
FY 1999 |
FY 2000 |
FY 2001 |
FY 2002 |
|
|
|
|
Actual |
Actual |
Actual |
Est. |
Est. |
1. |
OSHA Inspections |
34,443 |
34,342 |
36,350 |
36,400 |
36,400 |
2. |
New Cases |
2,106 |
2,324 |
2,407 |
2,500 |
2,500 |
|
|
Cases over $50,000 |
235 |
290 |
220 |
250 |
250 |
3. |
Administrative Law Judge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a. |
Case Inventory, Start of Year |
1,021 |
842 |
985 |
846 |
736 |
|
b. |
New Cases |
2,106 |
2,324 |
2,407 |
2,500 |
2,500 |
|
c. |
Total Caseload |
3,127 |
3,166 |
3,392 |
3,346 |
3,236 |
|
d. |
Disposals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
With Hearing |
158 |
156 |
131 |
127 |
127 |
|
|
(2) |
Without Hearing |
2,127 |
2,025 |
2,415 |
2,483 |
2,483 |
|
|
e. |
Total Dispositions |
2,285 |
2,181 |
2,546 |
2,610 |
2,610 |
4. |
Total Case Inventory, End of Year |
842 |
985 |
846 |
736 |
626 |
The table above shows projected, as well as recent, case activity. As shown in this table, the
level of inspections by OSHA, combined with the focus on alleged large-scale and willful
violators of health and safety regulations, is expected to result in an increase in new cases
appealed to the Review Commission -- from 2,106 cases in FY 1998 to 2,500 cases in FY 2002.
In FY 2000 there were 2,546 dispositions at the Administrative Law Judge level. This represents
an increase of 11 percent over the FY 1998 case disposition level of 2,285. Factors that have
contributed to the increase include improved case management through technological
improvements, the increased proportion of cases that are assigned to E-Z Trial, and improved
settlement efforts. The Review Commission's performance goals include several goals aimed at
increasing the percent of cases issued within a specific time.
Staffing
Of the total 70 FTEs requested, 29 are required for the Administrative Law Judge function. This
staff level includes the employment of fourteen Administrative Law Judges and fifteen staff
attorneys and other support staff. Given the number of inspections occurring in FY 2000 and
projected by OSHA for future years, the Review Commission believes that this is the minimum
number of FTEs needed to address the expected workload.
The Chief Judge manages the effort to increase the percent of cases tried within the established
goal and to increase the percent of cases processed without a hearing within the established goal.
The Chief Judge:
- Conducts early review and screening of the potentially difficult cases before
assignment,
- Exercises strong management and monitoring of progress of cases to meet
performance goals,
- Ensures training of judicial and administrative staff, and
- Engages in benchmarking efforts of other judicial case management practices.
The assumption of these additional administrative duties make it even more important to
maintain a full complement of Administrative Law Judges.
FTE |
|
FY 2001
Est. |
FY 2002
Est. |
Administrative Law Judge |
29 |
29 |
Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives and Performance Goals and Measures
The Review Commission's Strategic Plan (Revised) includes the following goals and objectives
related to this function:
Strategic Plan Goal |
Strategic Plan Objectives |
GOAL # 1
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 heard by Administrative Law Judges
that take less than a year to resolve |
1.2 |
Increase the percent of complex cases heard by Administrative Law Judges within
18 months |
1.3 |
Increase the percent of cases settled within six months |
1.4 |
Increase the percent of cases that take less than a year to settle to 99 percent |
1.7 |
Establish and comply with quality standards |
1.8 |
Explore ways to adapt alternative means of dispute resolution to case processing |
The Review Commission intends to advance this strategic goal and objectives during FY 2002
with the performance goals and indicators in the next table. Performance indicators or measures
appear next to each performance goal.
1.1
* |
Performance Goals |
Performance
Indicators |
FY 1998
Actual |
FY 1999
Actual |
FY 2000
Actual |
FY 2001
Estimate |
FY 2002
Estimate |
|
Increase the percent of
non-complex cases
disposed of with hearing
that are disposed of within
325 days |
75% within
325 days |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
70%
within 325
days |
75%
within 325
days |
1.2
* |
Increase the percent of
complex cases disposed of
with hearing that are
disposed of within 18
months |
75% within
540 days |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
70% within
540 days |
75% within
540 days |
1.3
|
Increase the percent of
cases that are disposed of
without a hearing that are
disposed of within six
months |
75% within
180 days |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
NEW FOR
FY 2001 |
70% within
180 days |
75% within
180 days |
1.4 |
Increase the percent of
cases that are disposed of
without a hearing that are
disposed of in less than
one year |
99% within
365 days |
96% within
365 days |
97% within
365 days |
98% within
365 days* |
99% within
365 days |
99% within
365 days |
1.7 |
Establish quality standards
for trial decisions and case
processing |
Percent of
effort to
complete |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
25%
(Establish
team to
benchmark
quality
standards for
case
processing) |
1.8 |
Explore alternative means
of dispute resolution for
Review Commission cases |
Benchmark
other ADR
initiatives |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
NEW FOR
FY 2002 |
Benchmark
other ADR
initiatives |
* Conventional cases disposed of with hearing were measured and reported without regard
to complexity in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Conventional cases settled without a
hearing within six months and all cases (conventional and E-Z Trial) settled within a one-year cycle time were measured and reported in FYs 1998, 1999, and 2000. The new
measurements for cases tried with or without a hearing include conventional and E-Z
Trial cases.
Commission Function
Function
The function of the Commissioners is to adjudicate cases contested under the Act, subsequent to
an initial decision by an Administrative Law Judge. This higher level of review must be both
prompt and protective of the parties' rights. The function is directly related to our public service
goal.
Proceedings Before the Commission
As mentioned previously, the Review Commission performs an adjudicatory function
independent from the enforcement and rule-making functions vested in OSHA. Disputed
enforcement proceedings are tried initially before the Review Commission's Administrative Law
Judges. Decisions by the Review Commission's Administrative Law Judges may then be
reviewed by the Commission members.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 provides that the President appoint, and the
Senate confirm, each Commissioner 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 Administrative Law Judges. Each Commission member has the authority to
review any case decided by any judge and may, by a single vote, direct a particular case for
hearing by the Commission members. Absent such a direction, the decisions of the
Administrative Law Judges 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 is aided by a counsel who 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 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 preparing and presenting factual and legal
analyses to assist Commission members in adjudicating appeals. Office of General Counsel staff
has primary responsibility for presenting cases to the Commission for disposition and for
preparing drafts of the Commission's opinions.
Commission Operations
The Commission strives to reduce the time for adjudicating cases and the number of pending
cases. Aided by improved case management technology, the Commission seeks to strengthen the
internal processes by which a case is prepared. Two external factors have a major impact on the
operations of the Commission: the maintenance of a quorum and the complexity of cases.
As mentioned previously, the Commission consists of three members. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act requires a quorum of two Commissioners and the affirmative vote of two
Commissioners to decide cases. During periods when the Commission has no quorum, no cases
can be decided. In addition, with only two Commissioners, it may be more difficult to reach
agreement sufficient to dispose of some cases. In cases where such agreement cannot be reached,
deadlocks result ("impasses"). As a result, action on important issues may be postponed and
issuance of some pending cases will be delayed.
The number of safety and health inspections carried out by OSHA each year, the nature of those
inspections, and the rate at which employers choose to contest the citations issued and penalties
proposed by OSHA as a result of its enforcement activity have an impact on the cases filed with
the Review Commission. In turn, OSHA's emphasis during recent years on more serious
workplace hazards, and the consequent increase in proposed penalties, has translated into more
complicated cases, more costly trials. Consequently, the complexity of the cases both at the
Administrative Law Judge level and at the Commission level has increased steadily in recent
years.
The Commission's inventory of cases includes a number of extremely large and difficult cases.
Preparation of each of these cases consumes a huge amount of attorney and Commissioner time.
This, in turn, slows work on all other cases. The size and complexity of these cases have
impacted the ability of the Office of the General Counsel to prepare and present a steady flow of
cases to the Commission for disposition and to prepare the initial drafts of the Commission's
opinions. To address this problem, we established two team leader positions in the Office of the
General Counsel to speed preparation, facilitate coordination of issues, and to help assure
consistency among cases. Team case preparation has shortened the time to analyze, present, and
draft a number of these cases.
During FY 2000 the Commission implemented several strategies to resolve as many cases as
possible, while adhering to high standards of quality:
- Identifying as a priority the resolution of older, larger, more significant, or more
complex cases
- Increasing the number and the length of Commission meetings to ensure thorough
consideration of the various complex issues
- Utilizing a cross-section of expertise in resolving complex cases -- including
individual discussions with the General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel,
team leaders, and the counsel to each Commissioner -- in addition to discussions
with and reviews by the Commissioners themselves
As a result of these strategies, in FY 2000, the Commission resolved several cases dating back to
the early part of the 1990s. Over the period July 2000 through October 2000, the Review
Commission issued twelve cases that had a cumulative age at the Commission level of 57. Most
of these cases were very large, both in terms of record size and the number and complexity of
issues.
Anticipated Commission Workload for FY 2002
The Commission was without a quorum for most of FY 1998 and was without a third
Commissioner from April 1997 to December 1999. As a result of a recess appointment in
December 1999, the Commission had a full three-member Commission until the end of
November 2000. Currently, there is one vacancy in the Commission. There also is one recess
appointee whose term will expire upon the adjournment of this session of Congress, if he is not
confirmed. As a result, the Commission expects to maintain a quorum throughout the remainder
of FY 2001. Any additional vacancies during FY 2001 will have an impact on the number and
types of cases that can be decided during FY 2001 and therefore, on the inventory of cases at the
beginning of FY 2002. Although we anticipate that the Commission will be fully staffed during
FY 2002, vacancies will continue to impact our ability to decide and issue cases.
Office of General Counsel and Commissioners' Case Activity
FY 1998 - FY 2002
|
|
FY 1998 |
FY 1999 |
FY 2000 |
FY 2001 |
FY 2002 |
|
|
Actual |
Actual |
Actual |
Est. |
Est. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
New Cases (a + b) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a. Cases Directed for Review |
43 |
31 |
48 |
36 |
40 |
|
b. Other New cases |
4 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
(1) Interlocutory Appeals |
(0) |
(2) |
(1) |
(0) |
(0) |
|
(2) Remands |
(2) |
(3) |
(3) |
(2) |
(2) |
|
(3) Other |
(2) |
(0) |
(0) |
(0) |
(0) |
|
c. Total New Cases (a + b) |
47 |
36 |
52 |
38 |
42 |
2. |
Case Inventory from Prior Year |
45 |
79 |
72 |
88 |
80 |
3. |
Total Caseload (1 + 2) |
92 |
115 |
124 |
126 |
122 |
4. |
Dispositions |
13 |
43 |
36 |
46 |
48 |
|
a. Final Decisions Issued |
(9) |
(24) |
(27) |
(32) |
(32) |
|
b. Other Dispositions |
(4) |
(19) |
(9) |
(14) |
(16) |
5. |
Case Inventory, End of Year (3 - 4) |
79 |
72 |
88 |
80 |
74 |
The table above shows projected, as well as recent, case activity. As shown in this table, the
number of cases in the inventory at the end of FY 2000 increased from the level of the inventory
at the end of FY 1998. This is a reflection of a higher number of cases directed for review, the
fact that the Commission only had two members for three months in FY 2000, and the
complexity of the older cases that the Commission addressed during the year. The facts that the
Commission focused on more difficult cases in FY 2000, which take more time to resolve, and
that there were more cases directed for review, also contributed to the increase in the inventory at
the end of the year.
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 percent) occurred during the last three months of the fiscal year. During that
same year, fewer cases were directed for review. The net effect was that the inventory of cases at
the end of the year was reduced. However, the cases that remained were older and more
complex. These are the cases that the Commission addressed during most of FY 2000.
A series of temporary hires in FY 2000, who largely were used to help expedite the processing of
newer and less complex cases while freeing up the more senior permanent staff attorneys to
concentrate on the old and complex cases, and in some instances supported the work on these
cases. The success of this strategy is without precedent in the Review Commission. Between
July 2000 and October 2000, the Commission issued twelve cases that had a cumulative age at
the Commission level of 57 years.