| Comment Number: | OL-10511965 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 6:55:50 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 G-Adverse Actions-9901.703 :Indefinite suspensions- the concept of indefinite suspensions is of great concern due to its potential to be misused and/or abused. The open concept by itself without a timeline is an unfair and unbalanced action towards employees. How can an employee go indefinitely without duties and pay pending an investigation? Who would be responsible for the investigation to be done in a timely manner? We should not forget that the affected employee that is going through this administrative adverse action could be not at fault of what is being accused of at the time. Then if so, where are the protections for this employee? How are his/her rights truly preserved according to the law? How is this employee going to continue supporting his/her family pending this “investigation”? Subpart H- Appeals: How can the regulation itself be constructed where the Department reserves the right to unilaterally reverse a decision of an MSPB Administrative Judge simply because the Department does not agree with the decision rendered and does not see it as correct? Where are the employees’ basic rights protected at this point? This is a unilateral position that benefits only the Department. Subpart I –Labor management 9901.907:I need to express a total objection to the creation of a National Security Labor Relations Board. The creation of a board whose members would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense, paid by Department of Defense and be tasked to address matters associated with negotiations dispute, including unfair labor practices, negotiability disputes, and bargaining impasses among others which are internal in nature is conflicting in regards to the interest expected to serve. A board that reviews such matters as the one this board would be tasked with should be an independent entity that is not appointed by the organization that has to serve. It should be appointed by another branch of government to guarantee impartiality to employees in their final decision-making process, as well as DoD compliance with all pertinent laws that protect government employees and guarantees collective bargaining. This board would not undergo Congressional oversight. So in simpler terms “You can’t put the fox in-charged of the chicken coop”. In addition, the creation and functioning of this board would require a significant amount of money allocated and at this time there is no need to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to invent a structure similar to the existing Federal Labor Relations Authority. 9901.910-Management rights: Under the proposed regulation, management will have carte blanche to exercise their authority without any delay regardless of employee’s rights or consideration of impact. How can this be in the best interest of the government when it comes to change in working conditions related to the implementation of a new policy, or procedure without adequate preparation of personnel and planning to ensure successful implementation? How can “duty to consult” come close to fulfill the minimum requirements of bargaining in good faith when one side (management) retains all the powers to provide notice to the exclusive representative of employees of its intention to exercise an authority? It would be naive to believe that this sharing of ideas and options by the employees’ exclusive representative would be considered when no other guarantees are attached to the process. When it comes to the education field, new curriculums and policies cannot just be directed to be in place without adequate planning and implementation procedures. The present system adequately provides for emergencies and allows the setting aside of contractual provisions once the emergency is declared by a competent higher authority. The proposed regulation wants through its language make the powers available in an emergency to be the standard procedure in all-routine activities. The Antilles Consolidated Education Association (ACEA) proposes that the current provisions of law be retained until such time as all of the numerous defects of this proposed regulation can be cured. We object to the implementation of this proposed system due to its fundamental bases and development flaws. Alexis A. Gorbea ACEA President