Mr. IRVING. Traditionally it has been very hard to determine exactly what accounts for the increase in Board caseload. We have tried to see if it equates with election years, downturns in the economy, and upturns in the economy.

When we think we have something that is meaningful, we test it one more time and then it just does not pan out. It's very difficult. We do know it is always upward. Indeed, since 1970 we have had a 46.6-percent increase in caseload, including what we predict for 1976.

I might add, we have had a 15.5-percent increase in staff since 1970.

Mr. MICHEL. Is there any breakdown of these unfair labor cases which are filed as between employers and employees?

Mr. IRVING. Yes; we have tables in our annual report which cover those.

Would you like to have us submit the table from our annual report of 1974?

Mr. MICHEL. All right, something pertinent that would give me the information there.

[The information follows:]

Table 1A.-Unfair Labor Practice Cases Received, Closed, and Pending, Fiscal Year 1974

Table 1B.-Representation Cases Received, Closed, and Pending, Fiscal Year 19741

Mr. MICHEL. How about in those cases where decisions have been rendered in each category?

Is there any breakdown of the number of cases rendered in favor of the employee as against the employer?

Mrs. MURPHY. I do not think we have those figures with us.

Mr. MICHEL. You do not have? Why would you not have those figures?

Mr. IRVING. We have the number of C cases decided by the board. Mrs. MURPHY. We can develop them for the record if you want them.

Mr. MICHEL. I had better have them.

Mrs. MURPHY, All right.

[The information follows:]

In fiscal year 1974, the NLRB closed a total of 27,016 unfair labor practice cases, 24.6 percent by formal or informal settlement agreement and 4.1 percent by order of Administrative Law Judges, the Board or the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The remaining 71.3 percent were withdrawn or dismissed or otherwise disposed of. In 17,307 CA cases, which are charges against employers, 25 percent were closed by settlement agreement and 5.1 percent by compliance with an order; 69.6 percent were withdrawn or dismissed. In 6,483 CB cases, filed against labor organizations, 19.2 percent were closed by settlement and 2.6 percent by order; 78.2 percent were withdrawn or dismissed.

In fiscal year 1974, the NLRB also closed 3,226 other types of unfair labor practice cases (CC, CD, CE and CP cases) which are generally given statutory priority in processing and which, except for some CE cases, were all filed against labor organizations. Of these 3,226 cases, 33.1 percent were closed by agreement, 2 percent by order, and 46.1 percent by withdrawal or dismissal. The remaining 18.8 percent, 605 cases, were referred to the Board's jurisdictional dispute procedures under section 10(k) of the NLRB. Of the 605 jurisdictional dispute cases closed, 37 percent were disposed of by agreement of the parties, 4.6 percent by Board decision and 58.4 percent by withdrawal or dismissal. (Tables 7 and 7a, NLRB Annual Report, 1974.)

In fiscal year 1974 approximately 12 injunction proceedings against employers were closed under section 10(j): Seven of these injunction petitions were granted by the courts, and three proceedings were settled. In fiscal year 1974 about 206 injunction proceedings against labor organizations were disposed of under sections 10(j) and 10(1). Of these, injunctions were granted in 72 proceedings and 83 were settled. (Table 20, NLRB annual report, 1974.)

DECISIONS ISSUED AND VIOLATIONS FOUND BY THE BOARD (JULY 1, 1971 THROUGH DEC. 31, 1974)

Mr. MICHEL. How many cases have been filed by employers over the issue of illegal picketing of a primary or secondary nature? Mrs. MURPHY. We can get that figure for you.

Mr. MICHEL. How many were ultimately decided in favor of the employer?

Mrs. MURPHY. Our executive secretary can develop those figures, also.

[The information follows:]

Decision involving illegal picketing-July 1, 1971 through December 31, 1974 Total number of decisions involving allegedly illegal secondary picketing-Total number of violations found___

Percent of decisions in which violations were found.

142

109

76.8

TRAVEL COSTS

Mr. MICHEL. Your settlement rate is below the 1974 level?
Mrs. MURPHY. That is right.

Mr. MICHEL. Any explanation for that?

Mrs. MURPHY. Part of it may have been the restrictions on travel. Mr. MICHEL. Our restrictions imposed upon you, on travel?

Mrs. MURPHY. I think that helped, yes; 10 percent, that is a lot. Mr. MICHEL. Did you ever try figuring out how much you might be able to do by telephone instead of traveling?

Mrs. MURPHY. Having been a practitioner, Congressman Michel, I know that face-to-face dealing with settlements is always more productive.

Mr. IRVING. If I might interject, during the past year we have developed a very comprehensive program to both cut down on case-handling costs and, also, to conserve energy. We had our regional offices formulate a local plan on how they planned to cut back on funds for travel and for energy savings; what exactly were they going to do? For instance, things like coordinating travel where you have two cases out in the same direction. You send people out together in one car or one person handles it, that sort of thing also, we are promoting conservation of paper.

We have observed the Government-wide speed limit; GSA directed a 15-percent reduction in the use of GSA autos. We have implemented that.

We have done a good deal with regional cooperation where one regional office is closer to the place where an unfair labor practice is alleged to have taken place than another office is, even though the one that investigates it is not the one where the case is filed.

We have also opened up a couple of resident offices in areas which permit the public to get to us more expeditiously and also permit us to handle the cases more expeditiously out of those offices.

We have made travel economy one of the major subjects of our regional directors' conference. We have limited the travel funds of each one of our regional offices during this second half of 1975, giving each only a specific amount of money for travel and each has to come up with a plan to stay within that budget.

They have been able to save a good deal of money that way and still investigate the increasing caseload that we have.

So we have directed our attention on travel economy at that. You can always do better. We hope to keep an eye on this and continue to make it a priority item.

Mrs. MURPHY. You mentioned the telephone. Our telephone costs have gone up.

Mr. IRVING. Another position on travel, with the cases coming in and with the cost of travel going up-gasoline, plane fares, railroad fares, buses, and so forth. Plus we anticipate now that the per diem and the