| Comment Number: | EM-017506 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 2:29:43 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
March 10, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: Subpart H- Appeals I am troubled by the proposed weakening of due process under NSPS. Today we rely on the time-honored protection of third-party review. Employees can submit their appeal to an independent party, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Today, the MSPB weighs the evidence equally on both sides and issues a final ruling. Ninety percent of rulings favor management today. Under the new rules, MSPB will use a lopsided standard of evidence favoring management. Employees will have reduced access to evidence that supports their case. And to further tip the balance, MSPB rulings will be subject to reversal by the Secretary of Defense. Due process protections keep manager and supervisor honest. They protect employees from arbitrary unjustified actions. The proposed changes will make it nearly impossible for a good employee to challenge a bad action. This will embolden the least principled supervisors and demoralize the most principled employees, such as whistleblowers. Subpart I- Labor Management This section of the proposed regulation is a big disappointment. I hoped the new rules would address real problems that hamper efficient management. Instead, they throw out decades of case law which has grown from experience with every type of labor management issue. It replaces the independent FLRA with a new in-house authority NSLRA which will be free to re-interpret or replace established law with the arbitrary judgment of DOD political appointees. This will prove a challenge to both unions and management. Unions will have no confidence in the fairness of the NSLRA. On top of that, the new rules eliminate vast categories of "appropriate arrangement" bargaining, which have posed only limited problems in the past. With the scope so drastically reduced and the process so strongly balanced toward management, what remains can hardly be called "collective bargaining." The result will deprive employees of a meaningful voice in their working conditions. This was not the intent of the NSPS law, which calls for the preservation of collective bargaining rights. I recommend the regulation be revised to restore the role of the FLRA, the guiding principles of established law and a meaningful form of collective bargaining. Sincerely,