# NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-06: Impact Analysis Program Modifications > Federal · Agency guidance · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0006 ## Section - **Citation:** NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-06 - **Heading:** Impact Analysis Program Modifications - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** NLRB General Counsel Memoranda / Impact Analysis Program Modifications ## Text OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO: All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers FROM: Leonard R. Page, General Counsel SUBJECT: Impact Analysis Program Modifications The Impact Analysis Committee recently reviewed the status of Impact Analysis in light of the field's experience under the system and our improved budgetary circumstances. The committee was guided by the underlying principle of Impact Analysis, which is to ensure that our resources continue to be focused on resolving cases with the greatest public impact. In addition, the Committee recognized that reducing the number of cases in the Regions' inventory of situations pending preliminary investigation is a matter of concern to the Administration, Congress and the public and, accordingly, remains one of the Agency's most important priorities.1 A review of Regional Office performance under Impact Analysis demonstrates that substantial improvement has been made in timely processing cases over the past few years. At the end of FY 1997, the first full year cases were processed pursuant to Impact Analysis principles, the national cumulative percentage of unexcused overage cases was 18.3, 30.1 and 22.5 for Categories 3, 2 and 1, respectively. As of April 2000, the cumulative percentages for FY 2000 had been reduced to 10.5, 14.9 and 13.1, respectively. Moreover, our case intake has decreased over the past two years from 39,618 to 36,657 to 33,392 cases in Fiscal Years 1997 through 1999, respectively. Our case intake for the current fiscal year is, to date, approximately the same as last fiscal year. Our field FTE in Fiscal Years 1997 through 1999 was 1341.1, 1299.6 and 1259, respectively. The estimated field FTE for FY 2000, however, is approximately 1335 and the field FTE should increase this fiscal year. In view of the above, I concur with the committee's recommendation regarding the reduction of time goals for Category 2 and 1 cases filed on or after October 1, 2000 as last fiscal year. Our field FTE in Fiscal Years 1997 through 1999 was 1341.1, 1299.6 and 1259, respectively. The estimated field FTE for FY 2000, however, is approximately 1335 and the field FTE should increase this fiscal year. In view of the above, I concur with the committee's recommendation regarding the reduction of time goals for Category 2 and 1 cases filed on or after October 1, 2000. Thus, Category 2 cases, which currently have a time goal of 11 weeks, will have a 9 week time goal for disposition. Category 1 cases, instead of a 15 week time frame, will have a goal of 12 weeks. Category 3 cases will retain their 7 week goal. The current allowable overage percentages of 10, 15 and 15 percent for Categories 3, 2 and 1, respectively, remain unaltered for FY 2001. In agreement with the committee, I believe that the modifications in the time goals will have the desired result of reducing the case inventory and are capable of being achieved by most Regional Offices. I have also adopted the committee's recommendation that certain Section 8(a)(1) and (3) discrimination cases involving a loss of employment and a refusal to refer for employment, which are currently included in the Investigative Stage as Category 2, should be upgraded in the Litigation Stage to Category 3 upon merit determination.2 (Please note that such cases should continue to be categorized as 2 for the Investigative Stage). Given the lengthy trial calendar in many Regions, moving such merit cases to Litigation Stage Category 3 on the trial calendar is a meaningful effort to assist those employees whom we have determined to have suffered greatly as a result of exercising rights protected by the Act. Not all meritorious Section 8(a)(1) and h cases should continue to be categorized as 2 for the Investigative Stage). Given the lengthy trial calendar in many Regions, moving such merit cases to Litigation Stage Category 3 on the trial calendar is a meaningful effort to assist those employees whom we have determined to have suffered greatly as a result of exercising rights protected by the Act. Not all meritorious Section 8(a)(1) and (3) loss of employment and refusal to refer cases, however, are worthy of such recategorization. For example, "salting" refusal to hire cases,3 as well as cases where the alleged discriminatees have been reinstated or do not desire reinstatement, should not be upgraded. As suggested when Impact Analysis was initially established, we will continue to reassess the appropriate time frames and other components of Impact Analysis based upon our experience under the system, as well as staffing, training and other resources. If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please contact your AGC or Deputy. /s/ L. R. P. cc: NLRBU MEMORANDUM GC 00-06 August 10, 2000 Page 1 of 2 GC Memo 00-06 - Impact Analysis Program Modifications 4/11/2011 file://D:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\NLRB\config\temp_sessions\5246207667073444527\gc00-0... MEMORANDUM GC 00-06 1 Other factors considered by the committee were the increased emphasis over the past several years in considering Section 10(j) in appropriate cases and on compliance issues, as well as more expeditious processing of R cases. It was also recognized that, although we have substantially increased our FTE this year, these newly hired employees are not fully trained so as to be able to handle the full panoply of cases. 2 Section 8(a)(4) cases are already recategorized to category 3 upon merit determination. 3 The alleged discriminatees in such cases do not normally suffer economic or emotional consequences as great as traditional discriminatees that, although we have substantially increased our FTE this year, these newly hired employees are not fully trained so as to be able to handle the full panoply of cases. 2 Section 8(a)(4) cases are already recategorized to category 3 upon merit determination. 3 The alleged discriminatees in such cases do not normally suffer economic or emotional consequences as great as traditional discriminatees. Page 2 of 2 GC Memo 00-06 - Impact Analysis Program Modifications 4/11/2011 file://D:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\NLRB\config\temp_sessions\5246207667073444527\gc00-0... ## Nearby sections - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-01 Guideline Memorandum Concerning Frontpay](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0001.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-02 Investigative Subpoenas](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0002.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-03 Realignment of Responsibilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0003.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-04 Continuation of the Requirement For the Submission of Section 10(j)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0004.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-05 Daily Compounding of Interest on Backpay and other Monetary Awards](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0005.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-06 Impact Analysis Program Modifications](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0006.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 00-07 Reimbursement for Excess Federal and State Income Taxes which Discriminatees owe as a result of receiving a lump-sum backpay award](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0007.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 01-01 Pro Bono Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0101.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 01-02 "Casehandling in light of Fleming Cos., 332 NLRB No. 99 (October 31, 2000)"](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0102.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 01-03 "Report on Utilization of Section 10(j) Injunction Proceedings March 3, 1998 through January 15, 2001"](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0103.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 01-04 Guidelines for Response to Beck-Related Public Inquiries](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0104.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 01-05 "Unfair Labor Practice Complaints Issued December 19, 2000 – April 20, 2001"](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0105.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 01-06 Fundraising Following Recent Tragedy](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0106.md) - [NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 02-01 Guidelines Memorandum Concerning Levitz](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0201.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/NLRB_GCGC0006. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.