| Comment Number: | OL-10506779 |
| Received: | 3/13/2005 3:22:22 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:
Scrap the proposed system and do what Congress regulated. Work with the unions to make a better system. The National Security Personnel System (NSPS) proposed regulations alarm and concern me as an employee. I believe that these proposed regulations far exceed and in fact violate the authority Congress granted in the NSPS statute in the following ways. • Collective bargaining was to be preserved, not eliminated o DOD's proposed NSPS regulations 9901.905(a) and 9901.914(d)(5) violate Congress’ explicit order in 5 U.S.C. 9902(b) to preserve collective bargaining by overriding any provision of a collectively bargained agreement through “DoD or Component Issuances.” • Changes in working conditions surpass what was authorized and in essence negate standing contracts. o Changes in working conditions in proposed NSPS regulation 9901.914(d)(5), seek to declare such issuances to be non-negotiable and superior to collectively bargained agreements. • Changes to management's rights end collective bargaining o It's apparent that the Department’s proposed NSPS regulations violate the specific Congressional directive in 5 U.S.C. 9902(b) to preserve collective bargaining by expanding management rights so dramatically as to deny bargaining in almost any circumstance. In the proposed NSPS regulation 9901.910(a)(2), the Department declares that management will now have the power “to take whatever other actions may be necessary to carry out the Department’s mission,” a clause that literally has no definition or limitation in the regulation. This proposed management “right” effectively ends collective bargaining in the Department, in direct violation of Congress’ specific order to the contrary, as management can literally apply it to any situation in the Department to deny bargaining. • Changes to the review process eliminate a "true" independent third party review o In 5 U.S.C. 9902(m)(6), Congress required the Department to ensure that any new labor relations system provided for an independent third party review of the Department’s decisions. However, the Department’s proposed NSPS regulation 9901.907 (a)(1) intends to create a new labor relations review board, costing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to invent a structure similar to the existing FLRA. Further, under proposed NSPS regulation 9901.907, the members of this board would be appointed solely by the Secretary of Defense, with no Congressional or outside oversight. This is the equivalent of the “fox guarding the henhouse,” violating Congress’ specific instructions to ensure an independent third party review. • Changes in the make-up of the review void the possibility of an independent review panel o Proposed NSPS regulation 9901.907(a)(1) violates Congress’ specific instructions in 5 U.S.C. 9902 (m) (6) to ensure independent third party reviews of the Department’s labor relations decisions. In proposed NSPS regulation 9901.907(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense is provided the unilateral power to appoint as many members to this review board as desired. In other words, if the review board begins to issue decisions the Secretary doesn’t like, the Secretary can “pack” the Board with as many new people as required until the board issues decisions to the Secretary’s liking. This proposal is an emphatic rejection of Congress’ instructions in 5 U.S.C. 9902(m)(6). • Changes deny employee the right to a fair hearing o The proposed NSPS regulation 9901.807(k)(8)(iii) denies employees their right to a fair hearing of their appeals for adverse actions taken against them by the Department. In this proposal, the Department reserves for itself the right to unilaterally reverse the decision of an MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ), merely because the Department does not agree that the decision was correct. This is the equivalent of the prosecution being able to tell a courtroom judge that the decision just rendered is not what the prosecution wanted, so the prosecution will overturn the judge’s decision! Changes to the current personnel system and employee rights should be worked out collaboratively with employee unions as set forth in the regulations issued by Congress. The regulations should be adhered to, not ignored. Furthermore, how can presentations at town hall meetings be construed to be collective bargaining? When were the unions given an opportunity to preview the proposed regulations before publication and actually bargain these changes?