provides for handling most, but not quite all, of the cases we will receive in 1982. Therefore, the challenge for the NLRB is to maximize the effective use of the resources committed to us by Congress. I believe our record assures you that we will do just that, our best. That includes, of course, everyone, including the members of the Board. We have managed to set a new record nearly every year recently, in the number of our decisons, though that goal may be unrealistic for 1981 in view of the vacancies on the Board. We have made, and will continue to make, progress on our primary problem of recruiting qualified administrative law judges so as to assure the public of more prompt and effective resolution of those cases which cannot be settled. We have achieved some cost reductions which are reflected in the budget before you, and we would be happy to respond to any questions you may have in that area. Finally, I think it is probably more important than ever before to emphasize that our work should not be viewed only in terms of the substantial service provided to employees, both in unfair labor practice cases and in the 9,000 or so elections we hold each year. These functions are also the means by which we provide an invaluable service to American industry by resolving thousands of cases and preventing or minimizing disruptions of business activity. I believe the General Counsel, Mr. Lubbers, would like to say a few words and then, of course, we will try to answer any questions you may have. May I again say to you, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Fanning. We want you to know that it has been a pleasure to have you before the committee at this time and it has been down through the years. You have made an excellent Chairman of the Board, you have made a good Board Member, Mr. Fanning. It has certainly been nice working with you, with all of the requests that have been presented to our committee. I want to thank you for your statement. We will be pleased to hear from you now, the General Counsel, Mr. Lubbers. Go right ahead. GENERAL COUNSEL LUBBer's highlIGHTS Mr. LUBBERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I am pleased to have given you a more detailed statement of the aspects of the budget which affect the operation of the Office of General Counsel. I would like to take just a moment to emphasize what I consider to be several important points. First, we are continuing to settle more than 82 percent of the meritorious unfair labor practice cases, and we are thereby avoiding the expense and the disruption of labor management relations which litigation involves. We think our earnest desire to be flexible and to search for reasonable ways to resolve these cases presents an ideal example of how the Federal Government can work with the people to achieve a statutory aim. Second, we are very pleased to have the first statistics on our program for more carefully screening the public inquiries which may or may not lead to the filing of a charge. In the first 11 months of our public information officer program in the regional offices, we received 129,037 inquiries from the public. Only 9.2 percent of these, or 11,818, resulted in unfair labor practice charges actually filed. In approximately 29,850, or 23 percent of the inquiries, the persons inquiring were referred to other appropriate public agencies. I know that the avoidance of unnecessary work of investigating nonmeritorious cases has been a concern of Congress for some time, and I would also like to remind the committee that even when we, perforce, do take a charge, if the case proves not to have legal merit, our processes are designed to make that determination as early as possible and with minimal inconvenience to the charged party and other parties. We are concerned about preventing large increases in cases pending action in the field. Our policy for decades has been to begin all investigations immediately and to move the cases along, to prevent delay at every stage which is under our control. In spite of the screening of new cases, the total workload is still increasing. We receive these cases because we offer an effective means of resolving them, and we should not forget that resort to the NLRB is not mandatory for the normal concerns of unions, workers, and management employers. The peaceful resolution of labor disputes through Board processes is a highly desirable alternative to the use of economic force in resolving disputes. And of course in cases of employee discharges and other discrimination forbidden by the National Labor Relations Act, there may not be an alternative remedy for the individual workers who are discharged, no other reasonable way, for them to have obtained the over 10,000 reinstatement offers and over $30 million in back pay which occurred in fiscal year 1980. For these reasons we believe that we can see some direct and substantial benefits to the U.S. economy when we have done our work with reasonable expedition, and the support and understanding we have received from this committee has confirmed us in this belief. Now I am glad to join Chairman Fanning in doing our best to answer your questions. Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Lubbers. We want you to know that we appreciate your statement. BOARD MEMBER VACANCIES Now gentlemen, let me ask you, how many Board members do we have at the present time? Mr. FANNING. We have three, sir, out of a normal complement of five. Mr. NATCHER. When do these terms expire? Mr. FANNING. The term of former member Penello expires in August of 1981. Mr. Truesdale, his office is vacant because he was never confirmed by the Senate. He was serving on an interim appointment basis for a time and then President Reagan withdrew his nomination. So his term would have been a new term beginning last August and it would have run for five years. So we have a short term of six or seven months and practically a full term of SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN Mr. NATCHER. How is the chairman selected, Mr. Fanning? How were you selected? By the Board? Mr. FANNING. No, I was selected by the President. Mr. NATCHER. By the President? Mr. FANNING. Yes. Mr. NATCHER. You have served as chairman for how long now? Mr. FANNING. Since April of 1977 in this term. Prior thereto I served for two or three months as acting chairman by appointment of President Ford. GENERAL COUNSEL'S TERM Mr. NATCHER. When does the General Counsel's term expire? Mr. LUBBERS. My term expires, sir, in April, 1984. WORKLOAD WITH THREE BOARD MEMBERS Mr. NATCHER. What kind of problems do you encounter operating with only three Board members; serious problems? Mr. FANNING. Yes, sir, very serious problems. The statute requires that decisions, all substantive decisions be made by at least three Board members. When we have five Board members operating, we serve in panels of three. We have five panels which meet every afternoon, with each Board member chairing one panel and two other Board members serving on that panel. So, with 5 members, each member does not have to participate in 40 percent of the cases. Now, of course, we have only three Board members and we have to act on everything. I might add from a sheer work standpoint, when a Board member leaves office, his or her staff is assigned to the chairman. So I have been operating two staffs since about November of 1979 because we have had only four Board members, and for awhile three Board members, in effect, since that time. At the present time two Board members, myself and Member Jenkins, are operating two staffs. Member Jenkins is the next senior Board member. BOARD JURISDICTION Mr. NATCHER. What kind of guidelines does the Board use in determining whether or not to exercise jurisdiction in a case? Mr. FANNING. First we have to establish that the situation is affecting commerce and then in most cases there is a dollar limitation that over the years has been imposed, going back to about 1953 or 1954. It establishes certain dollar amounts of yearly income or yearly business that the employer must do before we will assert jurisdiction. Now that is even true in cases like the health care industry. In 1974 the Congress authorized us to extend the act, or did extend the act to the health care industry; the Board then adopted some dollar limitations again. We adopted a $250,000 limitation on asserting jurisdiction over hospitals, and I think $100,000 for nursing homes and related facilities. We do that in an attempt to control the caseload. What we try to do is adopt a dollar figure that will have an appreciable—will produce an appreciable impact on the industry and yet not produce so many cases that the Board couldn't begin to handle them. Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Fanning, what kind of businesses or enterprises are not covered by the Board? Mr. FANNING. Those that are not in interstate commerce, of course. There are others--there is some question being debated now as to the extent we would have jurisdiction over colleges and universities. That is a matter that recent Supreme Court decisions pose problems with respect to. But categorically, the only ones we won't clearly have jurisdiction over are public employees and those that I would call local and not producing interstate commerce. INDUSTRY COMPOSITION OF WORKLOAD Mr. NATCHER. What kind of industries compose most of the Board's workload? Mr. FANNING. Manufacturing industry. Mr. NATCHER. If you will, provide a table, please, for the record, to show this in a little more detail. Mr. Knisely will see it is inserted in the proper place. [The information follows:] CASELOAD BY INDUSTRY Mr. FANNING. Manufacturing accounts for the largest proportion of the Agency's cases, although we receive cases from every industry with the exception of those we have no jurisdiction over, such as railroads and airlines. We have included for the record Table 5 of our Fiscal Year 1979 Annual Report which illustrates industrial distribution of cases received in Fiscal Year 1979. In 1979 manufacturing generated 43.7 percent of all cases, mining 1.3 percent, transportation, communication and other utilities 13.4 percent, services 14.5 percent and all other 27.1 percent which includes construction, trade, insurance, real estate |