| Comment Number: | OL-10504741 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 9:46:58 AM |
| 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:
Subpart F, Sections 9901.601 to 9901.611: By redefining competitive area (in reference to RIF situations), the DOD will be able to target groups of employees. In a RIF situation where these employees are selected to be released, because the competitive area is so narrowly defined, these employees will not have the chance to bump or retreat to other areas, unless offered a vacant position at the Department’s option. Subpart F, Section 9901.607: The wording is very misleading. Tenure is the first criteria for a reduction in force. However, an experienced employee recently assigned a new job could be the first to go in a RIF, without retreat rights to their previous job. Subpart G, Sections 9901.714 and 9901.715: Our current system provides an employee with a 30-day notice and 15 days to reply. The new system changes the time requirements to 15-day notice and only 10 days to reply. This will put undue time requirements on employees and anyone that would be representing them. With the new rules for non-disclosure of information this will make it virtually impossible for employees to be able to defend themselves with questionable or untrue allegations. Subpart G, Sections 9901.714 and 9901.715: Reference Adverse Actions, how can the 15 day advanced notice period and the 10 day reply period run concurrently? The period to reply runs out before the advance notice period ends. This does not make sense. The period should not run concurrently, but serially. Subpart H, Section 9901.807: The DOD is violating Federal Law with this section. The provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 prohibit the majority of the changes in the Appellate Procedures proposed by NSPS. In fact, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 specifically states, “nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the waiver of any provision of law. For example, the proposed regulations give the Department sweeping authority to override or delay interim relief granted by the MSPB (the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 simply states that interim relief can granted by the MSPB), the proposed regulations require a preponderance of the evidence (this legalese is different than the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 which simply requires an employee to raise substantial questions of fact), the proposed regulations provide limitations on when the Department will be responsible for employee’s attorneys fees if the employee is the prevailing party (the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 does not authorize this change). The DOD does not have the authority to make the changes proposed in this section and quite frankly they are prohibited from making these changes. Subpart I, Section 9901.905: This section references time limits in section 9901.908, there are no time limits discussed in section 9901.908. Subpart I, Sections 9901.901 to 9901.928: Contrary to the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 the DOD did not afford employee representatives the opportunity to have meaningful discussions during the development of the proposed Labor-Management Relations. Subpart I, Section 9901.907: The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 requires the DOD to provide for independent third party review. The proposed National Security Labor Relations Board with Secretary appointed members is not an independent third party.