| Comment Number: | OL-10509742 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 5:30:47 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:
The proposed National Security Personnel System (NSPS) regulations issued by the Department of Defense (the Department) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) are deeply disturbing to me as a Department employee. The Department’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.” In proposed NSPS regulation 9901.914(d)(5), the Department seeks to declare such issuances to be non-negotiable and superior to collectively bargained agreements. Essentially, this provision will provide the Department the authority to make any change it desires through these issuances, while barring any negotiation over these changes, in spite of Congress’ specific orders in the statute to the contrary. 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. 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! To continue to recruit and retain quality teachers for DoD schools, it is imperative to preserve the bargaining and employment rights that now exist. These new proposals undermine these rights and will make attracting and keeping quality educators a formidable task. Please revise these proposals to retain the rights of educators and to satisfy Congressional intentions.