lective bargaining agreements than there has been at any time in my experience with the Federal public sector.

I think this is evident by the number of mediation assignments we have made. If my memory serves me correctly, we made some 385. Mr. FLOOD. What do you mean by the Federal public sector?

Mr. COUNTS. I am talking about the responsibilities that we have under Executive Order 11491 which has to do with organization of individuals in the employment of the Federal Government as opposed to the non-Federal public sector which would include bargaining with local counties, municipalities and States.

These assignments by way of illustration were about 385 in 1971 which is up from about 63 in 1970.

Beyond that in terms of involvement, Congressman Flood, I think there are a couple of things that really need to be noted.

EFFECTS OF WAGE-PRICE CONTROLS

Certainly our responsibility has become a great deal more complex and difficult under the income policy we now find ourselves operating under. Because of the restrictions upon economic benefits-and this Executive order only applies to economic benefits, it does not go to the so-called noneconomic benefits-we are finding many things occur. For example, savings clauses are being introduced into collective bargaining agreements which provide for reopeners or renegotiation in the event that the pay board approval of negotiated increases is not given. We are seeing a switch from emphasis upon the economic to the noneconomic, and the involvement of the parties with issues that have been at the very best most difficult ones, the so-called management responsibilities, rights to subcontract, job security, that type of thing. The ability to accommodate, to come up with solutions, to reach the determinations and effective decisions is infinitely more difficult where the ability to adjust in terms of economic benefits is restricted.

TREND TOWARD SHORTER CONTRACTS

I think also that we ought to note that the duration of the contracts are trending toward shorter term contracts. In construction for example, which is one of the large industries that we negotiate or will be negotiating this time around, the contracts are being developed at about a 12-month duration as opposed to past practices of 2 or 3 years. This could result in substantially large increases, and I underscore the "could", of activity for our service.

For while it is very clear that fiscal 1972-1973 is not in terms of major pattern setting industries a year such as the one we have been through, it certainly indicates from every factual aspect the possibilities of continuous concentrated involvement. So we are looking for a very large year.

STEPS TAKEN TO MAINTAIN AUSTERE BUDGET

With that as a matter of background or climate, I would like to say to you that we are coming to you with a budget which is even more austere than those that we have previously presented to you.

We have been very pleased with the treatment that has always been accorded to us and the consideration that has been given to us by your committee and by that of the Senate. The 1972 fiscal budget provided for 438 positions. As a result of OMB action, as a result of the implementation of the administration policy with respect to tightening the budget reins, the 438 positions approvals were reduced to 431. This position strength has been continued as a part of our 1972-73 presentation.

We have gone along with this on the basis of it being the administration policy and our desire to be cooperative with the administration, and upon the assumption and really upon the record that we could get the job done. We still adopt that position, but there are realities that I think we have to look at.

One of the very real things that is part and parcel of our doing business is that we managed to survive during these past 2 years with our position complement because we had been granted additional positions as a result of bargaining in the Federal public sector. Executive Order 11491 was effective 2 years ago. The lack of development of workload in the public sector gave us the ability to use those individuals in jobs other than the public sector.

We have increased our efficiency tremendously, and as I indicated to you in our discussions last year, by means of our automated recordkeeping system we have been able to keep a very close watch on the activities of our professionals across the country, we have been able to transfer personnel to where the work is. We have been able to reduce our complement of people in the national office and send them out into the field and to effectively borrow from the field to meet national bargaining situations when they occur.

We also have the ability as a result of individuals who have retired recently in our service to employ them on an ad hoc basis when, as, and if the situation is such as to demand their services.

We have continued and are continuing our development of our automated arbitration process. While that service to the public has increased by more than 100 percent over the past 5 or 6 years and is continuing at an increase of about 23 percent, we have been able and are developing our ability to handle the increase through automated processes without increasing our personnel.

I think we have done that at a favorable cost to the Government. We have utilized NASA systems made available to us without cost. We are renting the computer of the Department of Justice, and we are developing our abilities to further get data and information that has to do with dispute situations that we feel will effectively enhance our ability to do the job.

One other thing we have done has been to take a much harder line with respect to our responsibility to handle only those cases that have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. This is a most difficult thing because small disputes are as important in many instances, not only in terms of impact upon those that are directly involved but in potential impact upon the areas of a particular economy.

I mention all of this because if this year continues at the pace it is going it will be a real accomplishment in my judgment to effectively handle the workload under the appropriation recommendation that has come through OMB, but we are willing to try.

DELETION OF CERTAIN APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE

Mr. FLOOD. Your budget proposal is to delete several provisions previously included in your appropriation language. This is really something new for us. We certainly are not opposed to that. In fact we favor it. Our pet hate is excess verbiage in appropriation bills. We would like for you to explain briefly why the provisions are no longer needed. You can tell us now or supply it for the record.

Mr. LEJKO. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Management and Budget asked us to simplify the language included in our appropriation act. So initially we have just added the words "Federal Mediation and Conciliation" to it at their request. We have eliminated several provisions; namely, reference to sections 205 and 206 which are already included under 29 U.S.C. 171 to 180.

Mr. FLOOD. Supply those for the record.

(The information follows:)

Delete:

1. "Temporary employment of conciliators and mediators on labor relations at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18."

Authority for the above is contained under title IV of the general provisions of the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act.

2. "And Government-listed telephones in private residences and private apartments for official use in cities where office mediators are officially stationed, but no Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is maintained."

The above language is no longer required since all of the FMCS offices are located either in Government-owned or leased space.

Mr. COUNTS. It is a compliance with the OMB request and we are not significantly deleting from our request to you items of substance in terms of budget amounts.

PROVISION FOR OFFICIAL ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES

Mr, FLOOD. On the other hand, you are adding a provision to permit you to use not to exceed $1,000 for official receptions and representation expenses. I have said a lot of nice things about you for cutting out language and I can say a lot of bad things about you for coming in with this kind of thing. This is one thing the appropriation committee doesn't like.

Mr. COUNTS. Let me give you a little history.

Mr. FLOOD. Never mind the history.

Mr. COUNTS. A little background because I think it adds to it. I am not trying to be humorous.

Every year since I have been here, I have spoken of this problem with the Office of Management and Budget, and I have pointed to them the problems of distinguishing between a legitimate business expense and one that is not a legitimate business expense. As a result of our situation with respect to negotiations, we very often are required— when I say we, I am speaking of myself personally to assume expenses that in my judgment do not properly belong to me.

For example, in the national trucking negotiations we were negotiating with the totality of the Teamster organization and the totality

77-539 O 72 pt. 6 48

of the trucking industry. These negotiations continued over a period of about 36 hours without interruption. The parties were located in the conference room that we had rented. During a recess period, because there was no adjournment for dinner or anything else, sandwiches and coffee were ordered by the Teamster organization that was there and the parties in lieu of taking time out for dinner had this repast. This appeared on my bill to the tune of $85. Now this type of situation, I don't think, is one that should be the responsibility of a Government servant to handle.

I don't think it should be my responsibility to pay for the luncheons that we provide for the labor attachés from time to time.

Beyond that it is my experience, and I have operated under GAO surveillance as a part of the Defense industry, to believe that an amount of this size, which is minimal to say the least, can be adequately and effectively controlled and audited. It is not any amount, sir, that I feel affords any opportunity to take advantage of anything, merely to make ourselves whole.

ADEQUACY OF STAFF LEVEL

Mr. FLOOD. You are asking for no increase at all in the staff for 1973?

Mr. COUNTS. That is right.

Mr. FLOOD. In fact your staffing for both 1972 and 1973 is essentially below that for 1971. Yet you tell us that the number of disputes that you are called upon to mediate continue to increase.

Do you think the budget will permit you to do that job as well as you have done in the past?

Mr. COUNTS. As I indicated in my statement, our ability to do that has been predicated upon a more effective utilization of the human resources and the physical resources that we have had available to us. We are continuing those efforts. But certainly in all fairness to ourselves, if we do see the continued development of the public sector bargaining, if we do become involved in the agricultural sectorand it is not clear we will be, but legislation is pointing in that direction-and if the complexity of the mediation bargaining on the issues continues, and increases as it has under the incomes policy, then we are going to be hard put to move this with the existing people we have.

As I have indicated to you we are cooperating with the administration in its desire to run a tight ship. But I make no bones about it, if this thing goes as it has been going, we may be back here asking for a supplemental appropriation.

BREAKDOWN OF WORKLOAD BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS

Mr. FLOOD. You talked about this in your original presentation. I have a few questions on it. I don't know how much further you might want to go.

Suppose you tell us the percentage of your activities that are involved in the private sector, the public sector and in the non-Federal public sector? Do you have any percentages?

Mr. COUNTS. I could develop them for you very easily. In 1971 we made 385 assignments in the Federal public sector and we had about

60 such assignments in the non-Federal public sector. This compares with over 20,000 assignments in the private sector. So in terms of percentages, it is minimal.

COMPUTERIZED ARBITRATION SELECTION AND PROCESSING

Mr. FLOOD. You mentioned also the computerized arbitrator selection and processing system. How does that work? It is all right if it works?

Mr. COUNTS. It is developing, we think, very nicely and will be one of the better accomplishments in terms of efficiency and savings to the Government.

This service provides the labor-management community with lists of arbitrators to settle essentially their grievance or contract disputes. During fiscal 1971-1972 we furnished over 13,000 such panels. The average number of arbitrators included on a panel list was seven. This meant that we had to hand pull some 91,000 biographies, that in the case of the 13,000 panels we had to send at least 26,000 letters to the parties, one to management and one to labor, advising them of the appointment. We had to hand select these panels as a result of going through a manual listing or card indexing of the arbitrators on the list. The beauty of the computer is that we punch into the computer the names of the arbitrators that are on our list and complete biographical information. Beyond that we have an ability to determine whether or not they are available in terms of not having cases outstanding or not having temporarily removed their names from the list.

If, for example, we wanted a panel of arbitrators to hear a discharge case in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., we would ask the computer to give us a list of arbitrators in that geographic area who are familiar with discharge cases and who were available. Immediately we would get back a list of those that were available. At this point we do make a human selection of the individuals on the panel. We then place that list back into the computer. It produces the biographies of the individuals that are involved, prints the letters to the parties advising them of their selection and gets this mechanical work done very quickly. The real beauty of it is that the average grievance that comes through the private sector and through this type of procedure takes about 52 months before it gets to the arbitration procedure, and this is terribly long and is disruptive of the very thing we are charged to do, and that is to avoid disputes and to promote industrial peace.

The use of the computer is moving our response time from 15 days down to where we are now at about 10 and as this thing develops we expect to have a 24- to 48-hour turnaround time.

Mr. FLOOD. What is the cost of operating this thing?

Mr. COUNTS. I think it is $30,000.

Mr. FLOOD. Is that more than the old system?

Mr. COUNTS. That is more. We have handled a 23-percent increase without additional personnel and without the use of temporaries or significant use of temporaries.

Mr. FLOOD. Will it save money in the long run?

Mr. COUNTS. Our judgment is it will absolutely save a tremendous amount of money in just the mechanics of the thing, but in the development of our mission it will be tremendously important. We can ask