| Comment Number: | OL-10512040 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 8:21:27 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:
I’ve been a labor relations practitioner as a management advocate for almost 20 years, most of which has been with various parts of the Department of Defense. In your proposed regulations, you note that DoD and OPM specifically solicit comments on alternatives to the National Security Labor Relations Board (NSLRB), such as requiring (or entering into a service level agreement with) FLRA or some other organization to provide investigative and other services, subject to these regulations. I’ve not been satisfied with many decisions of the FLRA over the years. I agree that the Department’s mission should be given priority and there is nothing that compels the FLRA to do that today. However, I think the Department should give serious consideration to modifying the current proposal on the NSLRB. The authority for the proposed labor relations system expires in less than five years. The Department is running out of time to implement the labor relations system, evaluate it, and provide the necessary data to Congress to justify authority to go beyond the current sunset date. I won’t debate whether I believe the Department can establish a truly, independent labor relations board. The fact is, no matter what safeguards you establish, there will always be the perception that it is not independent since it is still part of the Department and the Secretary has authority to fire board members (regardless of this being the same strict criteria used today for the FLRA and MSPB). This perception that the board is not independent will make it difficult to extend the authority for the labor relations system. It seems to me that the labor relations system could be at less risk of failure if changes were made with regard to the NSLRB. One option is to retain the FLRA operating under NSPS rules completely. It seems to me that creating a new infrastructure is not in the best interests of the taxpayer. The FLRA exists now. The NSLRB does not exist now, but must be created and will likely cost the Department millions of dollars each year when you look at the volume of DoD labor dispute cases that the FLRA currently handles. The FLRA should be required to follow NSPS rules for DoD cases. In order to gain efficiencies and avoid overlaps with other agencies’ cases, the FLRA should consider establishing offices within the FLRA that specialize in DoD cases only. This ensures that the FLRA staff focuses on DoD cases for timely decisions and also establishes the appropriate national security expertise desired by DoD. If a service level agreement is reached with FLRA that requires payment to the FLRA by DoD, then FLRA’s budget should be appropriately reduced by Congress. However, I recommend they retain their current appropriations based on handling DoD cases and there not be any direct payment from DoD to FLRA for handling DoD cases under NSPS rules. Ultimately, the FLRA would be free from DoD influence in rendering its decisions under NSPS rules. If this arrangement doesn’t work, the Department should consider retaining the authority in its regulations to establish a board at a later date if it determines necessary. Another option is to establish the NSLRB on a more limited basis. The vast majority of labor dispute cases handled by the FLRA today for DoD are unfair labor practice disputes. The FLRA could continue handling unfair labor practice disputes at the regional offices. Any decisions by FLRA administrative law judges or regional directors could be subject to review by the NSLRB. The NSLRB would directly deal with arbitration exceptions, negotiability disputes and any other matters currently handled by the FLRA headquarters in Washington. This option gives DoD the ability to establish its own board, but at a much reduced cost than the proposed option in the regulations. It helps minimize concerns about independence on ULP disputes, the vast majority of cases, since the FLRA is still involved. However, it does not deal with the independence issue as much as the first option I recommend. Please give serious consideration to these comments. I want the Department to have a successful labor relations program and one that goes beyond the current sunset date. How the Department handles the labor relations board can make or break the program.