| Comment Number: | OL-10505856 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 9:17:38 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:
Section .903 – In the definition of consult, it states different methods for accomplishing the consultation. This definition should make clear that management has the option for determining the appropriate method for engaging in consultation. Section .903 – Section (4) of the definition of Labor Organization. This is not written clearly. The end of the sentence, “or imposes a duty or obligation to conduct, assist, or participate in such a strike” should be changed to read, “or encourages, promotes or imposes a duty or obligation…” The point here is that a labor organization should lose its status is it promotes or encourages employees to engage in a strike and not just imposes a duty or obligation. Additionally, this should not be limited to just a strike but should also include wording regarding a work stoppage or slowdown. Section .904(a) – In the last sentence, it is not clear what happens to an employee whose employment with the Department has ceased because of a ULP but has not been brought back to work. Does that person remain an employee forever? Additionally, at the end of the sentence, it provides that an employee has not “obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment” but it does not state with whom. Does that mean Federal employment or any job at all? Section .905(a) – Does management have an obligation to notify the union that certain provisions of an agreement are no longer enforceable because of the NSPS? Consideration should be given to identifying the process, if any, for the local parties to identify and act upon the inapplicability of provisions based on the issuance of NSPS. Section .905(b) – In the first sentence, between the words “issuance” and “to”, recommend adding, “or 60 days after being notified that a provision is no longer enforceable, whichever is later”. Section .907(a)(1), second sentence – Why limit additional terms to only two 1-year terms? Strongly recommend that there be no limit on the number of additional terms NSLRB members can be appointed. Should the Secretary appoint an outstanding member, his or her continued membership on the Board should not be cut short because of some arbitrarily selected term limit. Section .907(d)(1) – Has any consideration been given to establishing time limits on the Board’s decisions? Section .907(f)(1) – Recommend changing the 15-day limits in this section to 30 days. Fifteen days is way too short to make a sound, reasoned argument. Section .907(f)(2) – Recommend changing the 30-day limit to 45 days.