|
[Based on ALRB Operations and Procedures since January
1st, 1998]
Prepared by Angus Reid Group, Inc. - May, 1999
| Feasibility Report
|
Client
Satisfaction Survey |
FINAL
REPORT
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following
results are highlights
gleaned from
the benchmark
Client Satisfaction
Review conducted
among 411 Board
clients by the
Angus Reid Group
on behalf of
the Alberta Labour
Relations Board.
As a benchmark
study, the results
presented in
this report are
anchors from
which trends
can be monitored
over time as
changes are implemented
by the Board.
Overall
Satisfaction
The
table below presents
two analytical
measures for
the operational
areas assessed
in this Client
Satisfaction
Review.
First, the overall
satisfaction
score represents
clients' mean
average ratings
of their overall
perception of
the Board's performance
of each operational
area.
Second, the indexed
satisfaction
score presents
the mean average
ratings specifically
of all individual
attributes assessed
in each operational
area.
Comparatively,
overall
satisfaction
is highest for
the services
provided by Board
staff (7.0).
Satisfaction
is also relatively
higher for the
Board's communications
and voting processes
(6.7 respectively).
Client satisfaction
decreases in
comparison with
respect to the
investigation
and reporting
process and hearings
process (6.2,
respectively).
Finally, client
satisfaction
is lowest for
procedures involved
with urgent matters
(6.0) and for
the applications
process (5.9).
The indexed
satisfaction ratings presented are all higher
than the overall satisfaction ratings. As noted
in each individual section of this report, the difference
in ratings suggests that client respondents, when generally
rating their overall satisfaction, are potentially relating
their overall satisfaction to attributes, factors or
influences other than those specifically assessed which
guide each operational area. In other words,
client respondents are associating external "baggage"
with their overall satisfaction ratings which is not
uncommon in client satisfaction studies which purposely
exclude evaluations of decision-making processes within
adjudicative bodies, such as the ALRB.
| Operational
Area |
Overall
Satisfaction |
Indexed
Satisfaction |
| OVERALL
SATISFACTION |
6.1 |
6.8 |
| Overall
applications
process |
5.9 |
6.7 |
| Overall
procedures
for
urgent
matters |
6.0 |
6.4 |
| Overall
hearing
process |
6.2 |
6.8 |
| Overall
investigation
and
reporting
process |
6.2 |
6.6 |
| Overall
voting
process |
6.7 |
7.1 |
| Overall
service
provided
by
Board
staff |
7.0 |
7.3 |
The
operations and
procedures in
place for hearings
and applications
have the greatest
impact upon overall
satisfaction
with the Board.
Also, the investigation
and reporting
process and Board
information resources
and communications
impact overall
client satisfaction,
yet to a lesser
degree.
The procedures
related to urgent
matters and the
voting process
have less impact
upon the variance
of overall client
satisfaction
with the Board's
operations and
procedures.
Thus, although
critical weaknesses
emerge in each
of the operational
areas assessed,
the Board's focus
should first
point to weaknesses
noted in the
hearings and
applications
processes as
these areas are
most likely to
drive overall
satisfaction
with the Board.
Hearings
Process
A
total of 509
hearings were
conducted in
the Board's 1998/99
fiscal year ending
March 31st, 1999.
The weaknesses
resulting from
client evaluations
of the factors
involved with
the hearings
process point
to timeliness
of decisions,
timeliness of
scheduling, flexibility
in scheduling
and the clarity
of policies and
procedures.
Strengths, on
the other hand,
lie with the
professional
conduct of hearings
and assistance
from Board staff.
Further,
seven-in-ten
(71%) client
respondents having
appeared before
the Board as
an observer,
client or counsel
since January
1st, 1998 believe
that allowing
transcripts by
a court reporter
would be very
useful in the
hearing process.
However,
only one-third
of these clients
report they would
be willing and
able to pay for
the services
of a court reporter.
Given
that the timeliness
of decisions
is a key weakness
in the Board's
hearing process,
it is interesting
to note that
the plurality
of client respondents
(46%) prefers
the format of
decisions to
take the form
of a formal decisions
with reasons.
However,
almost four-in-ten
(38%) client
respondents would
prefer an oral
decision, followed
by a letter.
Applications
Process
Noted
factors of weakness
in the applications
process are related
to the timeliness
of processing
applications,
the clarity of
policies and
procedures, and
the quality of
the content of
applications
accepted by the
Board.
Strengths of
the Board's applications
process focus
on the letters
of correspondence
from the Board
during the applications
process.
The
majority (69%)
of client respondents
having submitted
or been served
with an applications
since January
1st, 1998 report
that letters
acknowledging
applications
remain consistent
with the Board
procedures that
follow either
always or most
of the time.
Investigation
and Reporting
Process
The
Board currently
conducts investigations
for all certification
and revocation
applications,
and for others
as directed or
required.
Client assessments
of the key factors
guiding the investigation
and reporting
process reveal
that the impartiality
of investigation
reports, the
thoroughness
of the investigation,
the consistency
of the investigation
and reporting
process, as well
as the quality
of the content
of reports are
all weaknesses
in the investigation
and reporting
chain of processes.
Conversely, the
strengths which
surface encompass
Board Officer's
knowledge of
issues under
investigation
and the timeliness
of receipt of
Board Officers'
reports.
Although
client respondents
having been involved
with an investigation
report since
January 1st,
1998 consider
reports to be
delivered in
a timely manner,
overall, they
request an average
of 8.6 working
days to review
a Board Officer's
report prior
to a scheduled
hearing.
Client expectations
for timely procedures
for the processing
of applications
and for hearings
are notably high
given that clients
also seek thorough,
high quality
investigation
reports as well
as almost two
weeks with the
report prior
to a scheduled
hearing.
In addition,
client respondents
report that more
investigations,
if possible,
be conducted
primarily with
unfair labour
practice complaints.
Information
Resources and
Communications
Union
clients and lawyers
are using the
Board's information
resources more
than employer
clients.
Use of the Information
Bulletins and
the Guide to
Alberta Labour
Relations Laws
are used by a
higher proportion
of clients in
comparison to
other resources
assessed.
As a benchmark,
one-third of
clients have
visited the Board's
website since
January 1st,
1998, however,
more than eight-in-ten
(83%) clients
currently have
access to the
Internet at work.
The
highest value
placed on specific
information resources
stems from lawyers
clearly appreciating
the Practitioners'
Manual and Decision
Index. Client
respondents also
place high value
on the Information
Bulletins available
- widely used
and highly valued.
In
addition, assessments
are consistently
positive for
Board staff providing
information about
the policies
and procedures
in each operational
area, where required
- an essential
component of
the Board's ongoing
communications
with its clients.
Urgent
Matters
A
total of 19 urgent
matters were
concluded in
the 1998/99 fiscal
year. Weaknesses
surfacing in
the procedures
for urgent matters
point to the
impartiality
of processing
urgent matters,
the timeliness
of processing
urgent matters
and the clarity
of policies and
procedures. Strengths
associated with
procedures for
urgent matters
rest with assistance
from Board staff
in providing
information related
to urgent matters
and the availability
of Board Members.
Voting
Process
A
total of 44 supervised
strike and lockout
votes and four
Board conducted
proposal votes
were held during
the Board's 1998/99
fiscal year.
In addition,
the Board conducted
116 representation
votes in certification
and revocation
applications.
Client evaluations
of the Board's
voting process
reveal that the
timeliness of
certification
votes, the professional
supervision of
strike votes
and the adherence
to policies surrounding
voter eligibility
are weaknesses
requiring attention.
Client expectations
are somewhat
conflicting given
that they wish
to have an average
of 8.6 working
days to review
an investigation
report, they
indicate a desire
for a more thorough
report, yet want
more timely certification
votes and hearings.
Accessible voting
locations, the
use of simple
language on vote
ballots, overseeing
the voting process
and the clarity
of policies and
procedures, however,
result as strengths
in this operational
area.
Overseeing
the polling stations
may be classified
as a critical
strength of the
Board's voting
process. Nevertheless,
one-half (50%)
of client respondents
having been involved
in a labour relations
voting process
since January
1st, 1998
believe that
Deputy Returning
Officers (DROS)
are fully capable
to oversee the
voting process,
compared to more
than four-in-ten
(41 %) who believe
that only Board
Officers should
oversee the conduct
of votes. Therefore,
utilizing Board
Officers more
often than in
the past to oversee
the conduct of
votes could potentially
improve satisfaction
with this factor.
Conversely, should
only DROs be
utilized to oversee
the process,
satisfaction
with this factor
could decline.
Mediation
The
Board's 1998/99
Annual Report
reveals that
a total of 161
complaints were
settled with
Officer involvement.
The plurality
(38%) of client
respondents perceive
Board Officers
to be mediating
disputes "about
the right amount
of time",
compared to three-in-ten
(28%) who feel
they are mediating
disputes "less
often than they
should be"
and to a smaller
proportion who
believe they
are mediating
disputes "more
often than they
should be".
An additional
two-in-ten client
respondents were
unable to respond
either because
they are unaware
of the mediation
process (12%)
or because they
are undecided
(8%).
Client
respondents would
be most comfortable
with an external
professional
mediator to mediate
a dispute related
to an active
file before the
Board. However,
only one-half
of these clients
are willing to
pay for external
services. Having
a Board Officer,
Chair or Vice
Chair mediate
a dispute is
accepted by the
majority of client
respondents,
as is appointing
a Member of the
Board - but to
a lesser degree
of comfort.
Most
(59%) client
respondents having
been involved
with mediation
since January
1st, 1998 report
that mediation
was effective,
primarily due
to the impartiality
at play and the
fact that a resolution
was reached.
Four-in-ten (39%)
clients, however,
perceive mediation
to have been
ineffective because
the process was
impartial and
given that the
opposing sides
did not reach
a settlement.
Inconsistencies
appear to occur
in mediation
with respect
to impartiality.
Services
Provided by Board
Staff
Weaknesses
in services provided
by Board staff
concern impartiality
and efficiency.
Strengths of
the Board staff
lie mainly with
the level of
professionalism
conveyed and
the courteous
approach to serving
client needs.
Throughout the
evaluations of
each operational
area, Board staff
was also positively
acknowledged
for responding
to inquiries
and providing
information when
required regarding
the policies
and procedures
governing each
process.
1.1
PERSPECTIVE
Client
expectations
will typically
always exceed
performance measures
given to organizations.
To this end,
the results of
this study must
be taken in context
of how to bridge
the gap between
client expectations
and the Board's
performance where
possible and/or,
alternatively,
how to better
manage client
expectations
within the realistic
framework of
the Board's operations
and procedures.
As
the initial measurement
of client satisfaction
taken by the
Alberta Labour
Relations Board,
clients send
clear messages
to the Board
in terms of areas
wherein the Board
is performing
well - professionalism
and staff assistance,
and areas for
improvement impartiality
and timeliness.
The
most intangible
theme resulting
in areas for
improvement lies
with impartiality.
In summary, this
factor is extremely
important to
clients, yet
the Board is
faced with a
notable gap in
meeting client
expectations
for this service
attribute. The
gaps revealed
in this study
are consistently
high for impartiality
which is noted
spontaneously
by client respondents
as the area which
most commonly
influences effective
and ineffective
mediation. Impartiality
is also spontaneously
tabled by client
respondents as
a recommended
improvement to
operations and
procedures -
second only to
suggesting that
processes become
more user-friendly.
The definition
of impartiality
was not explicitly
explored during
this study, and
the Board may
find it useful
to further investigate
the meaning or
situational context
underlying perceptions
of impartiality
in each of the
operational areas
assessed: service
provided by Board
staff; investigation
reports; mediation;
and, urgent matters.
Impartiality,
as clients perceive,
could - as one
hypothesis --
potentially relate
to decisions
more than to
the operational
procedures evaluated.
Prioritizing
Board efforts
to improve particular
components of
its operations
and procedures
must be implemented.
Based on the
analyses conducted,
overall satisfaction
with the Board's
operations and
procedures are
strongly associated
with the hearings
and applications
processes. The
key weaknesses
revealed in each
of these two
operational areas
should take precedence
over addressing
weaknesses noted
in other operational
areas.
Further,
the study results
reveal competing
interests in
terms of the
weaknesses which
emerge in certain
operational areas.
First, client
respondents point
to the timeliness
of decisions
in the hearings
process as a
key weakness.
However, the
plurality would
prefer a formal
decision with
reasons which
can only be prepared
by the four Vice-Chairs
or Chair (four
at the time of
interviewing).
|
