A performance audit of Agricultural Employment Relations Board

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF
AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD
OCTOBER 1981
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81- 10
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
& VDlTOR GENERnL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
October 7, 1981
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DFPUT" IUDITo.? LENEP? nL
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 9 1 0 NORTH 44TH STREET * SUITE 4 1 0 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 8 5 0 1 8 . ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 3 3 3 . FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 0 5 1
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
M r . John LaSota, Chairman
Agricultural Employment Relations Board
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Agricultural Employment Relations Board. This report is i n
response to a January 30, 1980, resolution of t h e J o i n t Legislative
Oversight Committee. The performance audit was conducted as a part of the
Sunset review s e t forth i n A. R. S. $$ 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of the report; a response from the
Agricultural Employment Relations Board is found on the yellow pages
preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss o r c l a r i f y items i n the r e p o r t .
Respect f u l l y submitted ,
~ ou& as R. Norton
Auditor General
Staff: Gerald A. Silva
William Thomson
Michael Murphy
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81- 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Page
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
The current a c t i v i t y level of the Agricultural
Ehployment e elations Board ( AERB) has
substantially increased when compared to
previous years' a c t i v i t y .
CONCLUSION
FINDING I1
The number of unfair labor practice charges
and the number of e l e c t i o n p e t i t i o n s handled
by AERB are recorded properly and other a c t i v i t i e s
are documented properly.
CONCLUSION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has evaluated the a c t i v i t y level of the
Agricultural Employment Relations Board ( AERB) for the period July 1,
1979, through June 30, 1981, i n response to a January 30, 1980, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This evaluation was
conducted as a part of the Sunset review s e t forth i n Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A. R. s. ) SS41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
AERB was established i n 1972 to promote a g r i c u l t u r a l labor peace and
minimize the effects of uncontrolled labor s t r i f e by providing a forum for
s e t t l i n g labor- management disputes. In conjunction with t h i s objective
the Board i n v e s t i g a t e s a l l e g a t i o n s of unfair labor practices and holds and
v a l i d a t e s e l e c t i o n s for union representation.
AERB was reviewed previously i n Auditor General Report No. 79- 7, - A
Performance Audit of the Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board.
That report noted that the a c t i v i t y level of AERB did not j u s t i f y its
staffing level. We have found the a c t i v i t y level of AERB has increased
substantially since Report No. 79- 7, and these increases appear t o j u s t i f y
the current s t a f f i n g l e v e l of AERB. ( page 5)
Report No. 79- 7 also found that AERB not only had a low a c t i v i t y level,
but was overstating the level it did have. In addition, AERB was not
properly documenting a l l of its investigations. We found AERB has revised
and expanded its reporting system and that these changes correct both of
the previous problems. ( page 11)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has evaluated the a c t i v i t y l e v e l of the
Agricultural Employment Relations Board ( AERB) f o r the period July 1,
1979, through June 30, 1981, i n response to a January 30, 1980, resolution
of t h e J o i n t Legislative Oversight Committee. This evaluation was
conducted as a part of the Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A. R. s. ) $ 541- 2351 through 41- 2379.
AERB was established i n 1972, when the Governor signed i n t o law, House
B i l l 2134, which added $$ 1381 through 1395 t o T i t l e 23 of the Arizona
Revised Statutes. The Board is comprised of seven members appointed by
the Governor ( A. R. s. $ 21- 1386). Two of the members represent a g r i c u l t u r a l
employers, two members represent organized a g r i c u l t u r a l labor and three
represent the general public.
The objective of AERB is to promote a g r i c u l t u r a l labor peace and keep t o a
minimum t h e e f f e c t s of uncontrolled labor- management s t r i f e . The Board is
intended to provide a forum f o r the S t a t e ' s a g r i c u l t u r a l industry and
employees to s e t t l e disputes.
The a c t i v i t y l e v e l of AERB was reviewed previously. .. in Auditor General
Report No. 79- 7, A Performance Audit of the Arizona Agricultural
Employment Relations Board. That report noted t h a t the a c t i v i t y l e v e l of
AERB did not j u s t i f y its s t a f f i n g l e v e l and, i n addition, t h a t AERB had
overstated the number of unfair l a b o r p r a c t i c e charges it handled i n
j u s t i f y i n g its budget authorization. A t t h a t time it was recommended that
the Auditor General re- evaluate the a c t i v i t y at a f u t u r e d a t e t o determine
whether the a c t i v i t y level had increased or whether reductions i n s t a f f i n g
might be required.
The objectives of the re- evaluation were to:
1. Determine i f the a c t i v i t y level of AERB has j u s t i f i e d its present
s t a f f i n g level;
2. Determine i f the number of unfair labor practice ( ULP) charges
and e l e c t i o n p e t i t i o n s handled by AERB has been materially
overstated.
The re- evaluation covered the period from July 1, 1979, through June 30,
1981.
The Auditor ~ e n e r a le' x presses gratitude t o the members of the Agricultural
Employment Relations Board and the Board's administrative s t a f f f o r t h e i r
cooperation, assistance and consideration during the course of t h i s
evaluation.
SUNSET FACTORS
The low a c t i v i t y level of AERB and AERB's overstatment of t h a t a c t i v i t y
level were the principal reasons that Report No. 79- 7 recommended a
follow- up.
Inasmuch as the Sunset Factors were addressed i n Report No. 79- 7, these
factors are not readdressed i n t h i s report. For further information on
AERB's Sunset Factors the reader is referred to Report No. 79- 7, pages 5- 9.
FINDING I
THE CURRENT ACTIVITY LEVEL OF THE AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
( AERB) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED WHEN COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS'
ACTIVITY.
A review of the a c t i v i t y l e v e l f o r AERB revealed t h a t the level has
increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y with regard both to Unfair Labor Practice ( ULP)
charges and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n e l e c t i o n s . In the two years since our f i r s t
a u d i t , AERB has handled more than three times a s many ULP charges and
representation elections as it did i n the f i v e years before our f i r s t
audit. These increases appear to j u s t i f y the current s t a f f i n g l e v e l of
AERB.
Increased Number of
ULP Charges Filed
One of the primary functions of the AERB is t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of alleged
unfair l a b o r p r a c t i c e s . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n process is as follows:
1. A charge is f i l e d by a complainant.
2. General counsel f o r the Board i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e charge to
determine its v a l i d i t y .
3. If the charge is valid it achieves complaint s t a t u s , and the AERB
general counsel obtains more data to prepare the complaint form.
4. The complainant is given an opportunity to have the c a s e heard
before a t r i a l examiner, who hears both sides of the case and
renders a decision.
5. If the t r i a l examiner's decision is appealed, AERB w i l l review
the decision and render an opinion.
6. I f the case is appealed f u r t h e r , a Superior Court w i l l review the
case and render a decision.
Table 1 summarizes the UI9 a c t i v i t y of AERB f o r f i s c a l years 1974- 75
through 1980 - 81.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ULP ACTIVITY OF AERB FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1974- 75 THROUGH 1980- 81
Activity Level a t Each Stage
of the AERB ULP Process
Fiscal Year
Total Total
1974- 75 1975- 76 1976- 77 1977- 78 1978- 79 1974- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81 1979- 81
1. Number of charges brought to
the AERB general counsel 17 10 2 15 * 44 91 44 2 2
2. Number of complaints*" issued
a f t e r merge i n t o a
consolidated complaint
3. Number of consolidated
complaints resulting i n a
formal hearing
* No a c t i v i t y due to a Federal D i s t r i c t Court's injunction ( March 1978)
prohibiting AERB from enforcing the Agricultural Employment Relations
Act, A. R. S. $ 23- 1395 inclusive., ** AERB general counsel may, upon receiving a ULP charge, consolidate the
charge, dismiss the charge, have the charge withdrawn by the charging
party or issue a formal complaint against the charged party.
As shown i n Table 1, the ULP a c t i v i t y of AERB has increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y
i n the number of charges and the number of complaints issued. Only the
number of formal hearings has not increased.
Increase i n Number of
Election Petitions Filed
The second major function of the Board is to hold and v a l i d a t e e l e c t i o n s
for union representation.
According to A. R. S. $ 23- 1389, subsections C and D:
" C. The board s h a l l investigate any p e t i t i o n , and i f
it has reasonable cause to believe that a question
of representation e x i s t s s h a l l provide f o r an
appropriate hearing upon due notice....
" D. I f the board finds upon the record of such hearing
that a question of representation e x i s t s , i t s h a l l
d i r e c t an election by s e c r e t b a l l o t and s h a l l
c e r t i f y the r e s u l t s thereof."
From f i s c a l year 1974- 75 through 1978- 79, only nine election petitions
were f i l e d and only t h r e e e l e c t i o n s were held. In the two f i s c a l years
since our f i r s t audit, 1979- 80 and 1980- 81, there were 40 election
petitions f i l e d and 19 elections held.
Table 2 provides a comparison of AERB election a c t i v i t y f o r f i s c a l years
1974- 75 through 1978- 79 and 1979- 80 and 1980- 81.
Table 2
SUMMARY OF AERB ELECTION ACTIVITY FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1974- 75 THROUGH 1978- 79 AND 1979- 80 AND 1980- 81
1974- 75 through 1978- 79 1979- 80 and 1980- 81
Election petitions f i l e d 9 40
Elections held 3 19
Based on the information i n Tables 1 and 2, the a c t i v i t y level of AERB has
increased greatly i n the period under evaluation, when compared t o the low
level of a c t i v i t y of the period covered by Auditor General Report No. 79- 7.
Staffing Levels Appear Justified
A t the time of our previous review the Board employed three persons: a
general counsel, an investigator and an administrative secretary. AERB
had authorization for an executive secretary but t h e p o s i t i o n was vacant
a t the time of our f i r s t review. Although AERB employed only three
persons, its a c t i v i t y level did not j u s t i f y its s t a f f i n g level.
AERB now employs f i v e persons: a general counsel and executive secretary,
one full- time and one part- time investigator and an administrative
secretary. Although t h i s is an increase i n s t a f f i n g from the time of our
previous report, we found the increased a c t i v i t y level of AERB during the
past two f i s c a l years does j u s t i f y t h i s level of staffing.
CONCLUSION
The a c t i v i t y level of AERB has s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased during the past two
f i s c a l years and now appears to j u s t i f y its s t a f f i n g level.
FINDING I1
THE NUMBER OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGES AND THE NUMBER OF ELECTION
PETITIONS HANDLED BY AERB ARE RECORDED PROPERLY AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE
DOCUMENTED PROPERLY.
Auditor General Report No. 79- 7 found not only t h a t the a c t i v i t y l e v e l of
AERB was too low t o j u s t i f y its l e v e l of s t a f f i n g , but t h a t the Board was
overstating the a c t i v i t y l e v e l it did have. In addition, AERB was not
maintaining adequate documentation of: 1) informal investigations of
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e s , 2) some formal investigations of unfair labor
practices, and 3) unfair labor practice charges t h a t were dismissed by
the general counsel. Since the issuance of the previous report, AERB has
taken action which has resolved both problems.
Previously Overstated
Ac t i v i ts Levels
Report 79- 7 found t h a t AERB was counting unfair l a b o r p r a c t i c e charges a s
separate and independent charges i f :
1. The name of the charged party on a previously f i l e d charge was
changed due t o legal circumstances;
2. The same complaint was f i l e d by family members with d i f f e r e n t
surnames; and
3 Additional violations were added t o a previously f i l e d charge.
We found t h i s led i n f i s c a l year 1977- 78 to 30 unfair l a b o r p r a c t i c e
charges reported by AERB when the Board had, i n f a c t , received only 15
actual charges. We recommended a t t h a t time t h a t AERB change its
reporting so t h a t only the actual number of charges be recorded and not
amendments or additions t o them.
Our current evaluation revealed t h a t AERB continues to count individual
charges a s it has i n the past. However, the Board now also consolidates
these amended charges t o show the actual number of charges involved. In
addition, AERB also is reporting g r e a t e r d e t a i l on other aspects of its
processing of unfair labor practice charges.
Table 3 i l l u s t r a t e s the change i n reporting format of the AERB service
measurements chart. The table shows t h e s e r v i c e measurements chart
referred t o i n the Auditor General Report No. 79- 7, and the chart
currently used by AERB.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF AERB SERVICE MEASUREMENTS CHARTS
AS OF JULY 1979 AND JULY 1981
Service Measurements
a s of July 1979
1. Unfair labor practices ( ULP) f i l e d 1.
2. Hearing held on ULP
3. Elections
4. Charges i n v e s t i g a t e d b u t not f i l e d 3.
4
Service Measurements
as of July 1981
ULP charges f i l e d
a. Consolidated
b. Dismissed/ withdrawn
c. Pending
Complaints issued
a. Withdrawn
b. Settled
c. Dismissed
d. Pending
Trials on ULP charges
P e t i t i o n s f o r elections f i l e d
a. Consolidated
b. Dismissed/ withdrawn
c. Elections held
d. Pending
Hearings on elections
a . Pre- election
b. Post- election
c. Board hearings
Documenting Other A c t i v i t i e s
Report No. 79- 7 s t a t e d that:
"... the AERB is not adequately documenting unfair labor
practice charges ...."
Our evaluation revealed t h a t AERB now adequately documents ULP charges,
and every dismissed ULP charge is recorded on t h e s e r v i c e measurements
c h a r t ( s e e Table 3, l i n e 1).
Currently, each ULP' charge is assigned a case number by the AERB general
counsel, who reviews the charge and then makes a determination of whether
to consolidate the charge, dismiss the charge, and/ or issue a formal
complaint against the charged party. A l l of these actions or functions of
the general counsel a r e c l e a r l y defined on t h e s e r v i c e measurements chart.
CONCLUSION
More detailed reporting developed by AERB since the issuance of Report
No. 79- 7 c o r r e c t s t h e previous problems of overstating a c t i v i t y l e v e l s and
not documenting a l l a c t i v i t y .
BRUCE BABBITT
GOVERNOR
AGRICULTURAL EMPL'OYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
1937 WEST JEFFERSON, BUILDING A
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85009
( 602) 2 5 5 - 5 9 8 9
October 1, 1981
M r . Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
L e g i s l a t i v e Services Wing
S t a t e Capitol - S u i t e 200
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear M r . Norton:
M r . LaSota, the Chairman of our Board, M r . Gibney,
and I have reviewed t h e d r a f t of the performance a u d i t ,
and wish t o inform you t h a t we a r e i n complete agreement
with your f i n d i n g s .
I wish t o take t h i s opportunity t o commend M r .
Murphy of your o f f i c e f o r h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l and courteous
manner during t h e course o f t h i s a u d i t .
S i n c e r e l y yours,
Maxine Olds,
Executive S e c r e t a r y