| Comment Number: | OL-10509937 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 9:21:55 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:
Do NOT implement the DOD/OPM's National Security Personnel System (NSPS) as its NOT proven, nor has the union officials had sufficient time to review its impacts on government employees and comment/take appropriate action. Its an act of oppression by the DOD & OPM to force it on us. Substantive arguments we have made regarding the statutory limits on DoD's authority to establish a labor relations system and note needs to be made that the procedures DoD has used thus far have not met the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 9902(m). This subsection requires that employee representatives participate in, not simply be notified of, the development of the system. The Department has said it soon will publish a labor relations system regulation for comment from the general public, a process far different than the collaborative process used by the DHS. There is no statutory authority to operate in this manner and it would be in total disregard to process that is statutorily mandated. Public Law 108-136 protects the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and to participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions that affect them. Specifically, the Coalition has reiterated that, with the exceptions of national level bargaining and third party dispute resolution, NSPS preserves the provisions of Title 5, Chapter 71, which your concepts continually attempt to eliminate. We understand that you disagree with us over the applicability of Chapter 71 to the new human resources management system you will attempt to propose and implement, though we have not heard the basis for your view or your response to our legal arguments. Despite the limitations Congress placed on DoD's authority, you have announced pre-decisional concepts that make it clear to us that you intend to: Eliminate bargaining over procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by the exercise of core operational management rights. Eliminate bargaining over otherwise negotiable matters that do not significantly affect a substantial portion of the bargaining unit. Eliminate a unions right to participate in formal discussions between bargaining unit employees and managers. Drastically restrict the situations during which an employee may request the presence of a union representative during an investigatory examination. Eliminate mid-term impasse resolution procedures, which would allow agencies to unilaterally implement changes to conditions of employment. Set and change conditions of employment and void collectively bargained provisions through the issuance of non-negotiable departmental regulations. Assign authority for resolving many labor-management disputes to an internal Labor Relations Board, composed exclusively of members appointed by the Secretary, with a yet undefined opportunity for judicial review of certain Board actions. Grant broad new authority to establish an entirely new pay system, and to determine each employee's base pay and locality pay, and each employees annual increase in pay, without requiring any bargaining with the exclusive representative. To mandate non-reviewable national level bargaining without consideration of the hundreds of local and regional certifications by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. If there is any doubt, we herein restate our objection to your total abandonment of Chapter 71 as well as the law associated with the statutes interpretation. Chapter 71 should be the floor of any labor relations system you design. The apparent design of your plan is to minimize the influence of collective bargaining so as to undermine the statutory right of employees to organize and bargain collectively. When it enacted provisions to protect collective bargaining rights, Congress did not intend those rights to be eviscerated in the manner that your concepts envision. Any regulation reflecting any of the ideas above is unacceptable and contrary to law should be stopped