1.  Reduce the number of cases heard and not decided to 15 per arbitrator.

1. The parties have experimented with a case limit in the past. Prior to the enactment of the six month rule there was a 50 case limit which proved not to be as effective as the subsequent time limit period in the expeditious turn around of decisions from arbitrators.
   
2. It would become more difficult for arbitrator assignment as the number 15 is arbitrarily too low. The assignment of cases to one Public Law Board or one NRAB list normally exceeds that number. History has taught us that arbitrators can handle well over 15 cases and return them in a timely manner.
   
3. Parties would often be unable to use experienced arbitrators for complicated cases which would ultimately cost the NMB more monies to use less experienced arbitrators to explain complex theories and/or issues. The bottom line is that less experienced neutrals will need more days for hearings, study and writing which translates to less bang for the buck.
   
4. Case limit would be contrary in many instances to the idea of having like and/or similar cases handled by one arbitrator. For example, if the parties have 45 like and/or similar cases, instead of having three arbitrators each hear one-third of the cases at three different times the issue is heard once and the NMB pays for a one day hearing instead of three, with the possibility of conflicting decisions on the same issue.

The essence of this idea conflicts with the expressed goal of Idea 4 "...to assure the most efficient use of government funds when certifying arbitrators."

5. It is a worthy goal to use more arbitrators and to bring new ones into the industry. The parties have subscribed to that endeavor. The reality, however, is this limitation would put an increased financial burden upon the NMB. This would happen because the parties would be required to use many more neutrals to handle the same amount of cases which equates to more hearing dates and travel costs. We would further point out that it still is the parties' right to pick whomever it wants to use as an arbitrator and that right should not be inhibited.

Last, but not least, we would reiterate that time limitations are a more effective tool than a designated number of issues heard and not decided in resolving grievances expeditiously which leads to the second idea that reads as follows:

2.  Reduce the time from date of hearing to decisions from the current 6 month rule to 90 days.

Labor agrees that this idea should be implemented because it resolves issues sooner, but for it to work it will require sufficient funding. The incorporation of the idea would have to be prospective and not retroactive. We would further suggest that the reduction of time be done on an incremental basis with a first reduction to 120 days for a six month trial period. Arbitrators will need to be given the minimum number of 20 days per month otherwise the goal will be impossible to meet for even the most expeditious neutrals. Where funding is not provided and the arbitrators are not allocated the minimum number of 20 days per month, the NMB will extend the deadline requirements (120/90 days) on a pro rata daily basis.

Additionally, the NMB will advise the parties each month as to those arbitrators who have exceeded the deadline requirement. We would further point out those cases previously heard under the six month rule would not fall under the new deadline requirement.

We will next address the third idea which states:

3.  All cases must be completed within one year after receipts of the notice of intent at the NRAB

The Labor Members of the Subcommittee are in agreement as to how this idea should be addressed. This is a revisiting of an issue which was discussed in our June 5, 1998 Joint Labor/Management Report of the Section 3 Subcommittee, which Labor believes is a worthy goal.

Labor, would suggest that if the NMB in conjunction with the NRAB Members instituted this proposed idea it could be accomplished in the following fashion:

1. Notice of Intent is filed.

2. Submissions filed within 75 days with a possible 15 day extension

3. Board members will be given 30 days to review cases with intent to resolve.  Failing resolution the case will be deadlocked.

4. Board Members will then be given 15 days to certify case to an arbitrator who can hear the case within 60 days.

5. If Board Members fail to certify a case in accordance with Paragraph (d) the NMB will appoint an arbitrator within 15 days who can hear the case within 60 days.

6. Arbitrator receives case and renders a decision within 120 (to be subsequently reduced to 90) days.

If the aforementioned suggested schedule for handling of cases was instituted and assuming for the sake of argument that all of the steps were used and the maximum number of days was used at each step a case filed at the NRAB would be resolved with an Award within 360 days.

The Labor Members of the Subcommittee further notes that to make this process work in an on-going manner the parties would have to address the backlog of cases. To accomplish this task the NMB will need to provide sufficient monies for arbitrators and the parties will need to provide a sufficient number of advocates.

The Labor Members of the Subcommittee would recommend that the NMB institute its suggested time constraints in cooperation with the NRAB Board Members. The Subcommittee and Section 3 Committee could then work with it to implement the plan. We also adamantly state that the NMB Board Members have agreed on how to make this proposal work and have changed its Uniform Rules of Procedure in an appropriate manner.

In closing, Labor would add that not only is the one year resolution of cases a good idea for the NRAB it is an idea that should be expanded to include all Section 3 tribunals. We would emphasize that the one year needs to be applied to all tribunals otherwise, some parties might be encouraged to simply dump cases on various Public Law Boards or Special Boards of Adjustments so as to avoid expeditious resolution.

Last, but not least is the fourth idea which reads as follows:

4.  Implement an internal NMB monitoring process to identify multiple cases of similar circumstances and contractual issues arising on the same property to assure the most efficient use of government funds when certifying arbitrators.

Labor believes that the intent of this idea has merit. The best possible way to identify multiple cases of similar circumstances and contractual issues arising on the same property is for the parties to advise the NMB whenever such cases arise. If the parties are unable to agree and the NMB takes it upon itself to make such determinations based upon Notice of Intents and/or Statement of Claims the result could be an incompatible mixture of cases.

Historically speaking, the parties have generally tried to link like and/or similar cases although there has been a recent aberration from that history at the NRAB.

Labor suggests that if one of the parties believes a group of cases are of a similar nature and the other disagrees the party who believes that the cases are similar should broach the question with the NMB. The NMB will meet with the parties for resolution.

Labor further agrees with the NMB's February 6^th oral presentation wherein it stated that the parties should use the same arbitrators to resolve cases of similar circumstance and contractual issues on the same property.