| Comment Number: | OL-10507742 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 2:34:40 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:
Subpart F-Workforce Shaping Veterans' preference, Retention factors will include performance, veterans preference, tenure of employment, length of service, and "such other factors as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate." There should be no changes that take away any veterans preference. Placement rights for those employees reached in a RIF are significantly reduced. Employees would only be able to displace someone who is lower-standing on the same competitive list, ie, someone already in the same competitive group. Current OPM regulations allow employees to displace an employee who is in a lower tenure subgroup (bumping) or someone who is in the same subgroup, but with less seniority, if the position is one that is essentially identical to a position that the released employee had held previously in the federal government (retreating); the RIF changes are wrong and take away an employee rights…Subpart G–Adverse Actions, NSPS adds Mandatory Removal Offenses (MRO), a list of which DOD will publish in the future. The Secretary has the sole, exclusive, and unreviewable authority to determine what offenses will require removal as the only acceptable penalty or to mitigate that penalty. The MSPS should continue to oversee the adverse action appeals and have the authority to mitigate a wrongful or excessive penalty. The MSPB and Federal Circuit case law should be used just as it is used throughout the government for a fair and consistent process and in the publics best interest for fair and equitable treatment of federal employees. Notice periods can be shortened to 5 days if the employer has reasonable cause (not defined). These process proposed are not complete and there should be no changes until DOD has a proper plan that can be published on the federal register and allow the American public an opportunity to comment…Subpart H – Appeals Even if the full MSPB orders an employee back to work, the Department has the sole, exclusive, and unreviewable authority to place the employee in an alternative position or on excused absence pending final disposition of the case. Currently, reasonable factors, such as the length of employment and prior record of the employee, may be taken into consideration in finding whether management has applied an appropriate penalty. Under NSPS, such reasonable considerations are not used and that is totally wrong. Attorney fees should continue to be awarded if the agency is found to be at fault. The Department will have authority to review MSPS decisions and reverse the initial decision merely by claiming impact on the Department’s national security mission, erroneous interpretation of the law, governmentwide rule or regulations. The DOD should not have any authority to change any decision made by the MSPB; that is not impartial…Subpart I–Labor-Management Relations-There is no provision to solicit or consider nominations from labor unions. Members may be removed by the Secretary only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. This proposed board is not impartial and not in the publics best interest. Congress wants DOD employees to continue to have their rights to be represented by Unions and rights to collective bargaining. There is no reason to take away the employees rights to be protected under title 5. DOD employees should continue to be treated just like the rest of the federal government. Standards of conduct for union representatives–The proposed regulations say that employee representatives in the Department are subject to the same standards of conduct as any other employee, whether they are serving in their representative capacity or not. This is wrong and is an avenue for management to reprise against an employee for Union activity; that will discourage Union reps from exercising their rights for fear of reprisal. Example: current FLRA case law allows for robust debate without fear of discipline...These are my comments, please consider them and withdraw the NSPS