Comment Number: OL-10508777
Received: 3/15/2005 10:42:45 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:

First, I support the idea of replacing an antiquated personnel system with a more flexible system that will allow the DoD to better meets its mission, and will allow employees to be recognized for excellent performance. I just have a couple of comments: 9901.323: This provision states that employees with a current rating of record above unacceptable will receive a percentage increase in basic pay equal to the percentage by which the minimum of their rate range is increased. I suggest the language be change to "...employees with a current rating of record of at least acceptable (or successful) will receive..." The way the reg is written, you could have employees who are barely performing, but who are not quite unacceptable, getting pay increases. 9901.714(c): The agency should be allowed to place an employee on LWOP (without the employee's consent) during the notice period for adverse actions involving proposed removals. If the action is ultimately mitigated to a lesser action, then the agency will be required to convert the LWOP to administrative leave. If the employee has accrued annual leave (or credit hours or comp time), the employee should be allowed to substitute the annual leave for all or part of the LWOP. The reason for this suggestion is that with removal cases, the agency generally wants the employee off the job/worksite completely which then results in giving the employee paid time off during the notice period. Even though the notice period has been shortened, I think the reality is that it will still take between 30 to 45 days to effect a removal, from start [i.e., from issuance of the proposal notice] to finish. 9901.804: Suggest changing the standard of evidence for adverse actions to "substantial" vice "preponderance". 9901.917: Somewhere in this section I would like to make it clear that management has no duty to bargain over work schedule changes (e.g., requiring an employee to work a standard work schedule instead of a compressed work schedule). Changing/terminating an alternative work schedule has become extremely difficult because of the Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act and bargaining obligations. I suggest provisions be included that address such changes; specifically, while I don't mind bargaining over the impact/implementation of the change, I have a problem with bargaining over the actual decision to change. So, for example, if I need to change the work schedule of an employee from a compressed 5-4/9 schedule to standard 8 hour days, I should be able to do so with sufficient advance notice to the affected employee. I should not have to bargain the substance of this change, nor should I have to wait an extended time (i.e., until an FSIP decision is issued) before implementing the change. One last comment: I do not understand why NSPS did not address the EEO complaint/appeals process. The processing of EEO complaints uses a lot of valuable agency resources, and one complaint can take years to process. Also, too often we settle EEO complaints simply to avoid prolonged litigation. This, in turn, has made EEO the forum of choice for many complainants.