Bill would streamline employee grievance process

By MOLLIE ZIEGLER

A federal employee looking to air a workplace grievance has no shortage of options for where to take his case.

Depending on the nature of the grievance, it could be the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or perhaps the Merit Systems Protection Board. It could be the Office of Special Counsel, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Office of Personnel Management or even the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

And resolving such grievances — whether they concern alleged discrimination, an unfair labor practice, supervisor retaliation or something else — is usually an overly complex process that can take a year or more.

That’s why Rep. John Porter, R-Nev., is drafting a bill that would take a first step toward overhauling the way agencies handle employee complaints.
 
Porter’s bill would create a yearlong commission to identify ways to streamline and simplify the employee appeals process.

“The current system . . . is complex, often confusing, and may have outlived its original purpose,” Porter said at a July 11 hearing of the House Government Reform subcommittee on the federal workforce and agency organization. “We can preserve the rights of federal employees and at the same time increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal employee appeals process.”

Last year the Senior Executives Association called on lawmakers to consolidate the complaint, appeals and grievance processes into a single system to be administered by a federal appeals court. Critics and supporters both expressed a desire that the proposal be studied further before legislative action. Porter’s draft legislation is the first specific outline to be proposed.

Federal managers are an easy and convenient target under the current appeals system, said Bill Bransford, SEA general counsel.

The equal employment opportunity process is used by employees to raise complaints of job dissatisfaction when they lack evidence of discrimination, he said. Only 1.5 percent of the total cases filed resulted in findings of discrimination last year, according to a new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report.

“One reason the EEO process is so clogged is that a very high percentage of those 23,153 complaints are fully investigated, even though it is apparent to any informed observer that the complaint lacks merit,” Bransford said.

He said that having one independent agency with a strong, efficient and professional staff perform investigations would free agencies from the conflict of investigating their own complaints and permit greater focus and resources on the complaints that have merit. SEA, which proposes a new Federal Employee Appeals Court to replace all existing appeals systems, supports Porter’s proposal.

Identifying the reasons the process takes so long and is often considered unfair, as Porter proposes, is a “crucial first step” for redressing employee wrongs, said Neil McPhie, chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Under Porter’s proposal, McPhie would chair the commission.

But Bill Tobey, deputy solicitor of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, said overlapping jurisdictions has not been a significant problem. While he admits that the federal appeals process is in need of some fixes, he said an independent entity such as the congressionally chartered National Academy of Public Administration could do a better job of getting to the source of the problems and coming up with ways to fix them.

An outside group would remove real or perceived conflicts of interest, said EEOC chairwoman Cari Dominguez. She suggested the Council for Excellence in Government and Partnership for Public Service might also fit the bill.

“A well-regulated system to handle complaints and appeals must exist to protect the integrity of government because it ensures that employees receive due process and it ultimately preserves the principles of the merit system,” said Special Counsel Scott Bloch, who said the potential for a productive commission report and legislation is there.

Bloch said his agency’s investigation of unnecessarily repeated actions led to improved processing times for complaints in its screening unit and doubled the number of cases that go for further investigation.

While Bloch supports Porter’s reform effort, “it would be a mistake to simply jump to the conclusion that a draconian solution is in order: Eliminate all perceived complexity by removing alternate avenues for review of personnel actions.”

Office of Personnel Management associate director Nancy Kichak said that the year allotted for the commission to perform its work would be insufficient under Porter’s proposal.

Union officials said the proposed commission is too large, would have too broad a mandate, would take too long to deliberate unnecessary recommendations and would lack credibility because its makeup is too heavily political. The commission would be comprised of two manager representatives, two union representatives and the agencies facing review.

John Gage, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said that legislation should be narrowly tailored to focus on improvements at EEOC.