Posts

How Long Has This Unapproved Leave Been Goin’ On?

, ,

By Dan Gephart, December 11, 2024

Quick facts:

  • When disciplining for AWOL, you have to prove not only the alleged facts but also the charge elements.
  • AWOL of more than five days typically justifies termination.
  • Older cases reveal that, depending on some factors, even fewer than five days could justify termination.

Over the Thanksgiving break, I found myself glued to HBO’s “Yacht Rock: A DOCKumentary.” For the uninitiated, yacht rock is a smooth and melodic, California-based blend of jazz, rhythm and blues, and soft rock that dominated radio airwaves between the mid-70s and mid-80s. Think “Ride Like the Wind” by Christopher Cross, “Black Friday” by Steely Dan, “What a Fool Believes” by the Doobie Brothers, or, basically, any other song with the voice of Michael McDonald.

The documentary was fun to watch, but then I started hearing these wispy songs wherever I went. I couldn’t escape them. This morning, I got in the car, turned on the radio, and was hit with the should-be-long-forgotten classic “How Long Has This Been Going On” by Ace. That yacht rock earworm has burrowed way deep into my temporal lobe.

It’s a fitting song, after all, since I’m writing today about Absence Without Leave, a disciplinary charge more affectionately known as AWOL. How many hours of AWOL justifies termination? In general, the answer is usually AWOL of greater than five days

Example 1: Young v. USPS, 14 MSPR 549 (MSPB 1983). A USPS mail handler was removed for fraudulent use of sick leave requests and AWOL. The agency charged the employee with 19 instances of AWOL, totaling 122 hours. In the initial decision, the AJ found only six instances, totaling 40.75 hours were supported by preponderant evidence. However, the AJ noted that all of the AWOL took place in a short period of time between June 4 and July 19 of the same year.

Although the mail handler’s performance had been fully satisfactory for 17 years, it was outweighed by his more recent record of unreliable attendance and its impact on the agency’s ability to accomplish its mission. The removal was upheld.

Could removal ever be deemed reasonable for AWOL of a smaller number?

Absolutely. Let’s try 17 AWOL hours, the number you’ll find in Banks v. DLA, 29 MSPR 436 (MSPB 1985). After a long stretch of unauthorized absence, an employee stated, through a union representative, that he was being treated for depression and work inhibition. The agency initially sought to remove the employee for AWOL but then made an alternative offer: We’ll put the proposed removal into abeyance and place you in a one-year probationary period. However, the employee refused to sign the paperwork.

Subsequently, the employee was AWOL for a combined 17 hours over a one-week period, and it was solely those absences that formed the basis of the agency’s removal action.

The MSPB ruled the removal was “reasonable under the circumstances of this case.”  The Board pointed out the absences came shortly after the employee was warned about the previous absences.

How about eight hours or one day?

In Moxley v. VA, 36 MSPR 345 (MSPB 1988), a nursing assistant was placed on a sick leave restriction, requiring her to obtain medical certification to verify any use of sick leave. She requested sick leave for eight hours for later that month. The agency gave her five days to submit a medical certification of the need for sick leave. She didn’t, and the agency charged her AWOL when she failed to show up on the requested day.

The MSPB found the agency’s penalty of removal was reasonable due to several factors,  including the fact she had previously been suspended twice for similar AWOL offenses. [A quick note here: FELTG considers suspension an irrational option with an AWOL charge. Better to consider a reprimand in lieu of suspension.]

To recap: AWOL is a leave status – not automatically a disciplinary action. But AWOL is also a disciplinary charge. In general, removal is appropriate for AWOL of longer than five days. However, it may be appropriate for shorter stretches, such as 17 or eight hours, although it’ll depend on other factors. Whatever the length of absence, however, be sure to consider the following elements when disciplining for AWOL:

  • The employee was absent without authorization.
  • If leave was requested, denial was reasonable. gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

And Now a Word With … MSPB Member Henry Kerner

,

By Dan Gephart, December 3, 2024

A few days ago, we caught up with Merit Systems Protection Board member — and former Special Counsel — Henry Kerner as he closed in on the six-month mark of his term.

“That’s not a long time, but enough to get my footing,” Kerner said of his time at the Board. “Transitioning from a prosecutor to a judge is a shift in mindset, but it’s one I’ve really enjoyed. Back in California, I had colleagues in the DA’s office who made similar transitions, so I was somewhat familiar with the process. This is a great place to work — collegial, supportive, and focused on doing the right thing every day.”

I asked Kerner about the impact of the incoming administration on the functions of the MSPB.

“The MSPB continues its important work,” he said. “As Board members, we each have defined terms — mine runs through 2030. I’m sure other Board members feel the same way about their terms. Unlike some other agencies that might experience frequent turnover, it’s less common at independent agencies, though it’s always hard to predict the future.”

“Our mission remains steady,” he continued. “The merit principles endure and enforcing them is central to what we do. We’re committed to serving the Federal community and ensuring those principles are upheld.”

DG: First off, congratulations to you, the other members, and the agency for nearly wiping out the inherited  inventory. What’s the mood like there now? 

HK: It seems like people are pretty happy and relieved to have that burden lifted. There’s definitely a sense that we’ve reached a level of normalcy again. I really have to give credit to Ray Limon, Cathy Harris, my predecessor Tristan Leavitt, and, of course, the career staff. It’s been an all-hands-on-deck effort, so I want to extend my gratitude to everyone involved.

Having a full Board — not just a quorum — is a significant milestone for the MSPB and has been especially meaningful for staff who are new and have never worked under a fully staffed Board. Even during the period without a full Board, parties continued filing petitions for review, with about 500 new ones coming in every year. Now, a fully functioning MSPB can provide stability and predictability, which is beneficial for employees, agencies, and the entire Federal ecosystem.

DG: How has your stint as Special Counsel helped you in your transition to the MSPB?

HK: When I became Special Counsel, I found the office in pretty good shape. While I adjusted some priorities and made a few tweaks, the foundation was solid. Coming into the role, I didn’t have much experience in the Federal employment world. My background was primarily as a prosecutor — 18 years in California before moving to D.C. to work on Capitol Hill. That prosecutorial and congressional investigatory experience turned out to be great training for Special Counsel, but I had to build my knowledge of Federal employment law from scratch.

For instance, as a prosecutor, you develop shorthand for legal concepts — like “211” for robbery under the California penal code. Federal employment law has its own language, like “2302(b)” for prohibited personnel practices, which I had to learn on the job. By the time I transitioned to the MSPB, I had a much stronger grasp of that language and the nuances of Title 5. Having spent six years in this world, handling cases with the MSPB and interacting with other agencies, I was able to bring that experience to my new role, which has been incredibly helpful.

DG: How does your role at MSPB differ from your time at OSC?

HK: The job at OSC was primarily a management role — I was the head of the agency with significant management responsibilities. Here at MSPB, I’m a Board member, not the Chair, so I don’t have as much management responsibility.

DG: You bring a lot of expertise and experience on whistleblowing to the MSPB. What is something about the law or the Federal workplace that you only learned as a Board member?

HK: On the whistleblower side, I’m recused from many cases, given my prior role at OSC. Interestingly, some of the matters that come before the Board are areas where I don’t have much prior experience. For example, retirement cases — like disability retirement, FERS retirement, or law enforcement retirement — weren’t something I dealt with much while at OSC.

It’s been an adjustment. The things I know the most about, I now handle the least, and the things I know the least about, I’m doing the most. That said, with the volume of cases we handle, I’ve started to recognize patterns and develop familiarity with these new areas.

DG: Based on the cases you’ve reviewed, what stands out most when it comes to mistakes by Federal supervisors?

HK: I haven’t been at the Board long enough to make a comment on that, but one area that stands out is nexus cases. In misconduct cases, there must be a connection—or nexus—between the conduct and the employee’s duties or the agency’s mission. When the conduct occurs on duty or at the agency, the nexus is almost presumed. But when the behavior happens off duty, such as in a neighbor dispute or a car accident, the connection becomes less clear.

Sometimes, the behavior might not rise to the level of criminal charges but is still used by managers as a basis for discipline. These cases are complicated because they highlight the fine line supervisors must navigate. As Board members, one challenge we face is being limited to the record before us — we don’t always have the full context or history behind the situation.

Many cases involve long-standing workplace issues, but without a fully developed record, it can appear as though the incident is isolated. It’s crucial to ensure the record reflects the broader history and context. When the record isn’t as complete as it could be, it can make evaluating an adverse action difficult, and in some cases, the agency’s decision might not be fully supported by the available evidence.

DG: What trends are you noticing in new PFRs being filed? 

HK: Towards the end of my tenure at OSC, and now occasionally at MSPB, I’ve noticed political viewpoint discrimination cases starting to emerge. It’s not entirely surprising given the current political climate, but it’s something I observed at OSC and see sporadically here as well. While I wouldn’t label it a full-fledged trend yet, these cases have certainly caught my attention, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they become more prevalent over time.

gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

And Now a Word With … FLRA Member Anne Wagner

,

By Dan Gephart, November 19, 2024

When Anne Wagner sat down to talk with FELTG over Teams late last month, it had been less than three months since she was sworn in as a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). But this is far from Wagner’s first rodeo. She spent the previous nine years as Associate Special Counsel in the Office of Special Counsel. Before that, she was a long-time member at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), serving as vice chair.

And all that was preceded by nearly 20 years as an attorney for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).

“Yes, I’ve had a long career all within the civil service framework. The one common thread in my experience at the MSPB, OSC and here at FLRA is how after 40 years or so that the Civil Service Reform Act and all the extensions within it have been in effect, you’d think everything that could’ve been decided would have already been decided. But it’s incredible how many cases present novel issues and fact patterns that are unusual. It continues to be a very vibrant area of law.”

“In all three instances, I have been struck by the extraordinary commitment of the staff at each agency to their respective missions, the talent that each agency has been able to acquire and sustain, and their dedication to providing high quality work.”

DG: How do your early days at FLRA compare to the similar time frame at MSPB and OSC?

AW: In both instances (FLRA and MSPB), I came in at a time when there were a lot of cases awaiting decision. So, I pretty much had to jump in the deep end of the pool. As daunting as that can be, personally, I find that suits me. I don’t have to think about this new experience. I have to get very focused very quickly on the job I was asked to do.

I’ve now had some time to step back and reflect. In all of the agencies, my colleagues have been wonderful and the cases themselves are interesting and challenging.

DG: What lessons have you learned from those previous jobs that you will apply to your role at FLRA?

AW: The most important lesson is the fundamental importance of active listening. By that I mean, both in terms of listening to staff and work colleagues, but also active listening in terms of the parties. Deep attention to the submissions they filed, or certainly in terms of any kind of communication with them. I think it’s so important to be able to fulfill what we’re charged to do, and that’s been a central guiding truth that has helped me throughout.

In terms of leadership, the primary requirement is to establish trust. I know that seems formulaic to say that. But trust ties in with active listening, that people really believe you’re listening to them, not necessarily agreeing with them, but actively taking in what they’re saying and that you mean what you say and say what you mean.

DG: What is a common thread throughout your career in labor-management relations? 

AW: What has remained the same is the dynamic relationship that agencies and unions have sustained over the course of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. In some sense, that dynamic relationship has enabled both management and unions to adapt to the continuous and significant changes facing the Federal government and its workforce.

DG: What is the most pressing issue for the FLRA at this time?

AW: The budget. Our current budget for FY 24 is $29 million or so, which is the same amount of the FLRA’s budget in 2004. That’s not sustainable. We have, I think, half of the FTEs that we had back in 2004. And our caseload has increased. We’re understaffed and definitely would like to see the budget increased to be able to sustain if not add to our capacity to address the thousands of cases that come to us.

DG: Since 2021, FLRA scores on Best Places to Work have improved, and the agency regularly ranks high among smaller agencies. To what do you attribute these scores, and where is an area you’d like to see improvement?

AW: I haven’t been here long, but I can reasonably say that it’s leadership’s commitment to employee engagement. It’s the recognition that individual employee interest is aligned with the FLRA’s mission. To reiterate, the FLRA’s staff has a tremendous commitment to our mission. Also, the leadership instituted a labor management forum that was designed to specifically address employee concerns expressed through the FEVS.

That’s really important. We did something similar at OSC, and it really does move the needle — and not just artificially or superficially. When employees believe that the leadership is genuinely interested in making work life better, it changes how they feel, and that’s reflected in the FEVS.

DG: If you can impart one piece of wisdom to those who supervise bargaining  unit employees, what would it be?

AW: Going back to what I suggested before: Working toward mutual trust is essential. To recognize that unions and bargaining unit employees are as dedicated to achieving the agency mission as management. And keeping that in mind, to work from that foundation of commonality and sustain the trust. gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

Kiss-*ss Email Meets a Kick-*ss Last Chance Agreement

, ,

By Dan Gephart, November 13, 2024

Quick facts:

  • Traditional discipline isn’t always the most effective or efficient approach.
  • If writing a last chance agreement, make it clear that any future misconduct or unacceptable performance will be considered a breach.
  • The Reveles case provides a perfect example of the language to use in an LCA.

Who doesn’t love a redemption story? A real-life inspirational tale of an individual turning their life around gives us hope in our fellow humans. We like to believe in the best of people. It’s why we’re so willing to give people “one more chance.”

Until they let us down a second time.

In the world of Federal employment law, FELTG has always been a firm believer in the appropriate use of alternative discipline. If you think you have to remove the employee now because things just couldn’t get worse, wait until you screw up the details of the removal (or suspension or demotion). Alternative discipline lets you avoid those pitfalls. One of the most popular forms of alternative discipline gives the employee a chance to create his, her or their own redemption story. It’s the last chance agreement, and it’s simple.

  • The agency holds the employee’s penalty in abeyance.
  • If there is another act of misconduct or incident of unacceptable performance, the penalty takes effect. And, if the penalty is removed, the employee is removed immediately without appeal rights. (The employee can appeal a breach of the LCA but not the original penalty).
  • However, if there are no future incidents for the life of the agreement, the penalty will not take effect, and the proposed action will be canceled.

Win-win, as they say. The employee keeps the job, you retain an employee, and it’s another wonderful redemption story.

Unless they let you down again.

But that’s OK, as long as you pay attention to the details. Make it clear in the agreement that any future misconduct or unacceptable performance will be considered a breach.

I like to discuss Reveles v. DHS, DA-0752-08-0306-I-1 (2008)(NP) because it’s a great example of how to handle a breach of LCA. Also, it’s one of FELTG’s founding father Bill Wiley’s favorite LCA cases, one he calls the “kiss-ass” case.

Customs and Border Protection notified the appellant, a GS-12 supervisory border patrol agent, of its proposal to remove him on charges of misuse of government computer and lack of candor.  Four months later, the chief patrol agent sustained the charge of misuse of government computer. The agency then offered a last-chance agreement, where it agreed to hold the removal in abeyance for 24 months, provided the appellant agreed to abide by the terms. The appellant signed the LCA a few days later, admitting that his use of a government computer to send emails with inappropriate jokes was misconduct.

Six months after signing the LCA, the appellant sent an email to 39 co-workers in which he referred to another co-worker as a “kiss-ass.” And like that, the employee was removed. The agency called the misconduct “offensive and against Agency policy,” and noted it “demonstrated an unacceptable lack of professionalism and constitutes a violation of the Last Chance Agreement.”

The appellant, of course, filed an appeal. He claimed he was in compliance with the LCA because he meant to send the email to a close friend, who would not have been offended. He claimed the removal was too harsh for his level of misconduct

The judge was not persuaded. She noted the LCA’s language that “any violation of this agreement, including one instance of any type of misconduct, can be just cause for removal,” as well as the agent’s previous admission that misuse of a government computer was misconduct. gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

Complaint Doesn’t Fly, Thanks to a Swift and Effective Reply

, , ,

By Dan Gephart, October 15, 2024

Quick facts:

  • An air traffic control specialist and an agency operations supervisor entered a consensual sexual relationship.
  • The specialist alleged sexual harassment and discrimination on the bases of sex (female) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.
  • An EEOC AJ specifically noted the supervisors’ “swift” actions to investigate the allegations and minimize harm to the complainant.

When faced with an allegation of sexual misconduct, there are two words you must remember as you contemplate action — swift and effective. While reacting wildly is not condoned, hesitation is imprudent and ill-advised. It could open up liability to the agency, and, even worse, leave an employee in a dangerous situation.

The recent EEOC decision Annice F. v. Buttigieg, EEOC App. No. 2022004327 (Aug. 22, 2024), underscores the importance of the aforementioned advice.

An air traffic control specialist filed a formal EEO complaint alleging the agency subjected her to sexual harassment and discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. It started when an agency operations supervisor (AOS) was assigned to work alongside the complainant’s team. The AOS was not the complainant’s supervisor. However, due to the nature of his training and staff shortages, AOS sometimes provided operational instructions to the complainant and others on her team.

Soon after the AOS started working with the complainant, they began a consensual sexual relationship. However, that relationship ended abruptly when the complainant learned the AOS lived with his girlfriend and had multiple other sexual partners.

Later that year, the complainant told two supervisors of her intention to file a discrimination claim. She provided details of the relationship, explained the difficulty of working alongside the AOS, and shared concerns for her safety.

Now, imagine you’re one of these two supervisors, what would you do?

The supervisors told the complainant to contact local law enforcement, and advised her the agency would conduct an immediate investigation. That very same day, one of the supervisors reported the complainant’s allegations and prior relationship with the AOS to the agency’s Accountability Board in order to initiate a prompt investigation about sexual misconduct, potential gun violence, and involvement by local law enforcement for the safety of all parties.

Meanwhile, that same supervisor instructed management officials to immediately limit interactions and work projects between the AOS and the complainant. Soon after, the AOS was moved to a different team.

The supervisor also investigated the complainant’s claim that the AOS had guns in his vehicle on Federal property. No guns were found in the AOS’ vehicle, and the complainant admitted she never saw guns in his vehicle at work, just that he owned guns and stated he kept them in his vehicle.

Several days later, the complaint contacted a crisis hotline. She told her supervisors, who then sought guidance from the agency’s medical division. Citing the high pressure and national security implications of the air traffic control specialist position, the agency’s flight surgeon temporarily terminated the complainant’s medical clearance. A medical diagnosis is not needed to terminate clearance, only a concern that the employee’s physical or mental state could impact the performance of their job. Shortly after the complainant’s clearance was reinstated, she filed the claim.

The complainant alleged:

  1. She was harassed and subjected to a hostile workplace environment, resulting in disparate treatment.
  2. She was seduced, lied to, and coerced into having sex with a manager, under the belief that she was going to have a romantic relationship with him. Instead, however, the AOS used his position to convince her to have sex in order to benefit his own work environment, including assaulting and raping her on several occasions.
  3. She saw guns in the AOS’ car at work; however, nothing was done, and the guns were not removed.
  4. She went to the police and was told that she was not in any imminent danger; thus, she was unable to file a restraining order; and the AOS had since been moved to another facility.
  5. The agency removed her medical clearance as a result of her filing this EEO claim.

The EEOC AJ issued a bench decision that found the evidence established the agency took appropriate, prompt, corrective action in response to the complainant’s reports of sexual misconduct by the AOS and a potential gun violation on Federal property. Regarding the allegations of rape, the complainant was directed to local law enforcement.

The evidence also reinforced that the AOS was not a supervisor who was empowered to hire, fire, reassign, or take any other employment action against the employee, or make any decision that would affect her benefits or terms and conditions of her employment.

The AJ specifically noted the supervisors’ “swift” actions to investigate the allegations and minimize harm to the complainant. The complainant appealed, and the EEOC concurred with the AJ.

But it was not only the swiftness of the supervisors’ actions, but also the effectiveness, that EEOC found appropriate. This is particularly critical when the allegations include firearms on workplace grounds and sexual assault. gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

 

And Now a Word With … OSC’s Hatch Act Unit Chief Ana Galindo-Marrone

,

By Dan Gephart, September 17, 2024

Televised debates and annoying political advertisements can only mean one thing: It’s election season again, and the Office of Special Counsel’s Hatch Act Unit is busier than the restaurant kitchen in TV’s fictional The Bear.

In recent years, the most-common Hatch Act violations have involved the use of social media to engage in on-duty political activity. But each election season seems to bring some new surprise.

Ana Galindo-Marrone, Chief of the Office of Special Counsel’s Hatch Act Unit, generously took some time from her hectic schedule to answer our questions.

DG: Regarding inquiries or violations, what is a new issue that you hadn’t dealt with before?

AG: OSC has recently updated its position on Federal employees displaying political candidate merchandise after the election. We previously advised that once an election is over, it is okay to display such items. However, Special Counsel [Hampton] Dellinger has instituted a year-round ban on displaying materials related to a current or contemporaneous political figure no matter if it’s before or after an election. A current or contemporaneous political figure is an incumbent Federal elected official and/or someone who has ever received a political party’s nomination for President of the United States and is still living.

We also receive many inquiries about whether issue advocacy violates the Hatch Act, which we advise would generally not violate the Hatch Act, absent any accompanying message in support of a political candidate, party, partisan political group, or other electoral-focused message.

DG: Here’s an example of an advocacy issue – the Israel-Hamas war. Have you received any questions about it and, if so, what is your guidance?

AG: OSC has received numerous questions regarding whether the Hatch Act restricts Federal employees from expressing their views about the current conflict between Israel and Hamas and other related topics. In response, OSC issued an advisory opinion to inform Federal employees of when and how the Hatch Act might apply to such speech.

The relevant provision of the Hatch Act prohibits employees from engaging in political activity while on duty or in the Federal workplace. Speaking about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is not political activity unless that speech also shows support for, or opposition to, domestic political parties, partisan political groups, or candidates for partisan political office.

DG: What about flags in the workplace — pride flag, blue lives matter flag, upside down flag?

AG: If if it is not connected to electoral advocacy, it does not violate the Hatch Act.

DG: Is it OK to have political bumper stickers? And, if so, do you need to hide them if entering the agency’s parking lot?

AG: While the Hatch Act prohibits Federal employees from engaging in political activity in a Federal workplace, the Hatch Act regulations specifically state that an employee may place a partisan political bumper sticker on his personal vehicle and park that vehicle in a Federal parking lot or garage.

Even if an employee has bumper stickers for two different candidates on their car, we do not believe it violates the Hatch Act. Employees must be cautioned, though, against displaying other partisan political materials, or even bumper stickers, in such a way that makes the vehicle appear to be a campaign mobile.

DG: Can you follow an agency political appointee on LinkedIn?  And, must you no longer follow that person if they run for office?

AG: Yes, you can follow an agency political appointee on LinkedIn. Should the individual run for office, you can still follow that person. But Federal employees who follow a candidate must be careful not to engage in activity in support of the candidate while on duty or in the Federal workplace.

DG: What is your guidance on quotes by politicians in email signature lines?

AG: We advise that employees may not use work email signature lines to show support for political parties or candidates by displaying their quotes or campaign slogans.

gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

ALJ Rules Medical Inability to Perform Removal Was Fitting

, ,

By Dan Gephart, September 10, 2024

Quick facts:

  • A Navy shipfitter was injured on the job. He broke several bones, had internal bleeding, and later developed PTSD.
  • Years later, the agency and employee went through a good faith interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation.
  • A Merit Systems Protection Board administrative law judge upheld the agency’s decision to remove the employee for medical inability to perform.

Some cases we review offer fact patterns that include outlandish, even ridiculous, behavior by an employee. Other cases reveal an agency blatantly failing to follow the basic tenets of the law.

Denny v. Navy, SF-0752-24-0291-I-1 (May 29, 2024)(ID) is neither of the above. This case involves an appellant whose injury made it impossible for him to perform his job and an agency that followed the right steps to address the situation. Unfortunately, it was not a win-win situation in the end. However, Denny allows us an opportunity to review how to handle the reasonable accommodation process and medical inability to perform removals.

It all started because of an improperly installed hatch on a ship. The appellant, a shipfitter on a temporary assignment in Japan, stepped onto the hatch, which collapsed inward. He fell, suffering internal bleeding and several broken and fractured bones. The spotter, a coworker who was with the appellant, had a panic attack and could not help. The appellant was lucky to live through this accident.

The appellant was initially treated in Japan. Upon return to the United States, he was diagnosed with a lumbar contusion, left hip contusion, right index finger avulsion fracture PIP joint, right great toe avulsion fracture based proximal phalanx, right wrist scaphoid fracture status post-ORIF, pulmonary contusion, and splenic subcapsular hematoma. After a psychological evaluation and counseling, the appellant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from his work injury, as well as major depressive disorder.

After his injury, the appellant continued to work as a shipfitter. Fast forward a few years: His supervisor was not happy with the appellant’s work and sought to have him removed. The appellant then submitted a request for reasonable accommodation, elaborating that cold weather made his hand pain and back pain worse and that he had psychological trauma.

Four reasonable accommodations were considered but dismissed. The first, moving the appellant away from the waterfront and getting him out of the cold, did not address the other physical limitations or psychological concerns. Second, making the appellant a training instructor, a role he took on while the accommodation process played out, would require a promotion, and the appellant was only capable of teaching 25 percent of the curriculum.

The appellant also requested telework or medical retirement as accommodations.

First off, early retirement is not an accommodation. (Ironically, being removed for medical inability to perform creates a presumption of entitlement to those benefits.) But more importantly, telework is not an option for the shipfitter position, which requires work on large pieces of metal on ships or in the shop. The agency attempted reassignment as an accommodation but couldn’t find a position where the appellant could perform the essential functions.

In order to receive an accommodation, the employee must be a qualified individual with a disability. The term is defined as someone who:

  • Has a disability;
  • Satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires; and
  • Can perform the essential functions of such position with or without reasonable accommodation.

After a thorough process, the agency could not find any reasonable accommodations that allowed the appellant to perform the essential functions of his job. So, the agency removed him based on a single charge of Medical Inability to Perform the Essential Functions of the Position with the following specification:

“Documentary evidence demonstrates that you have permanent physical limitations and psychological limitations of an unknown duration. Because of the nature of your limitations, you are not able to perform the essential functions of your position of record.”

When the MSPB sustains all of an agency’s charges, it will usually defer to the agency’s penalty determination, only reviewing it to determine if the agency considered all of the relevant factors.

Separation for medical inability to perform is an adverse action. However, it is non-disciplinary. So, the agency did not have to apply the Douglas factors. Shoffner v. DoI, 9 MSPR 265 (MSPB 1981).

The administrative law judge ruled:

In the circumstances, the agency’s decision to remove the appellant was reasonable. Based on the existing medical restrictions, the appellant is unable to perform the WG-08 Shipfitter position. The restrictions are described as permanent. The appellant raised questions about the severity of his limitations but did not procure any adjustment from a medical provider. The agency considered the appellant for reassignment, but that process was unsuccessful.

The ALJ addressed other issues in the decision, including the appellant’s claims of whistleblowing and EEO retaliation, and reminded the appellant that removal for physical inability to perform the essential functions of a position is prima facie entitlement to disability benefits, and directed him to the Office for Personnel Management. gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

 

 

And Now a Word With … Mika Cross

,

By Dan Gephart, September 3, 2024

During the pandemic we learned that, yes, most employees can be trusted to perform their jobs when not physically present in the office. A Government Accountability Office report stated: “Telework generally appeared to positively affect productivity.”

Yet, many agencies, along with state and local governments, are pushing employees to return to the office. Meanwhile, many Federal supervisors have shared with us the challenges of managing a hybrid team.

Mika Cross, workplace transformation strategist at Strategy@Work, has been touting the benefits of remote work since long before the pandemic. And her passion has not wavered.

“Federal agencies have a unique opportunity to shape a more inclusive, flexible, and productive workplace,” she said. “One key area to focus on is embracing hybrid work models. By blending remote and in-office work, agencies can cater to diverse employee needs, enhancing work-life balance and overall job satisfaction while boosting productivity and better ways of working together.”

Adopting a hybrid model alone is not enough to transform a workplace. “Agencies should invest in initiatives that support employee well-being, such as mental health resources, flexible schedules, and wellness programs. Recognizing and addressing the unique challenges faced by remote workers can lead to a more engaged and productive workforce.”

We caught up with Cross for a brief conversation as she put the final touches on her Sept. 10 FELTG Virtual Training event Designing Inclusive, Healthy and Connected Workplaces Across a Distance.

DG: What is currently the biggest threat to employee wellbeing in the Federal workplace?

MC: In today’s digital workspace, effective collaboration is more crucial than ever, yet many organizations struggle with it. The shift to remote work has highlighted gaps in collaborative skills, making it essential to foster a culture of teamwork and communication, even virtually.

Meeting culture and poorly designed meetings can drain time and energy without yielding results, so streamlining meeting structures and focusing on clear outcomes is key to transforming productivity and helping to safeguard employee wellbeing.

High stress levels, increased workload and low morale are alarming. Data from the McChrystal Group show that 65 percent of government employees feel burnt out, compared to 44 percent in the private sector. Addressing these issues is vital for employee well-being as these issues affect physical well-being, work performance, productivity and attrition. An unsupportive environment can hinder productivity and inclusivity, making it crucial to create a safe and respectful workplace.

DG: You talk a lot about connectivity. How would you define it?

MC: Connectivity refers to the degree to which individuals, teams, and organizations are cohesively and positively linked, both internally and externally. It includes a variety of factors, such as effective and transparent communication, collaboration, and information flow. In the context of what I like to call “instrumental assistance” or … “helping each other out,” connectivity also involves cultivating a culture that enhances the ability to share knowledge, resources, and support effectively.

DG: How do you measure it?

MC: Measuring connectivity can be done through various methods. Network analysis examines relationships within a group or organization, using metrics like centrality, density, and bridging. Social network surveys assess the strength and frequency of interactions among individuals, asking questions like “How often do you seek help from colleagues?” or “Who do you turn to for advice or help when you need it?”

Employee surveys, listening sessions, pulse checks, and feedback mechanisms provide valuable insights into connectivity by capturing employees’ experiences and perceptions.

Tracking the effective use of collaboration tools, such as shared documents and chat platforms, also provides insights, with high usage indicating active collaboration. Connectivity often correlates with organizational performance, with metrics like project completion time, innovation, and employee satisfaction indirectly reflecting connectivity. Connection also enhances productivity, creativity, innovation, and overall well-being in the workplace.

DG: Some supervisors will tell you that it’s hard to create that connectivity when so many are working remotely. Can you provide an example of how to ensure connectivity within a hybrid team?

MC: Maintaining connectivity in a hybrid team can be challenging, but there are effective strategies to foster collaboration and engagement. One approach is to designate specific time slots for “virtual office hours.” During these hours, team members can connect with supervisors or colleagues for informal discussions, questions, or updates. Encouraging remote employees to participate actively in these sessions provides an opportunity for personalized interactions and builds stronger connections. Supervisors can use this time to address individual concerns, provide guidance, and offer recognition.

Another strategy is to invite staff to contribute questions, topics, or ideas related to the agenda before, during and after team meetings. Using collaboration tools or email to collect input ensures everyone has a voice. During the meeting, acknowledging those who contributed and discussing their ideas reinforces engagement and encourages ongoing participation. Keeping the door open for additional contributions beyond the meeting and encouraging continuous feedback from all team members is also crucial.

Incorporating optional team-building activities and fun sessions can enhance connectivity. Trivia sessions based on the organization’s mission or history, lunch and learns, virtual mentoring sessions, and team “watch parties” or learning events can all foster a sense of community and engagement.

For both in-person and virtual connection time, consider organizing hybrid events where some team members gather in person while others join virtually. Examples include hybrid team-building exercises, where in-person participants and remote colleagues collaborate on challenges or games. Hosting regular “coffee chats” or “mentoring sessions” where team members can join from anywhere helps ensure no one feels left out. Additionally, offering virtual and in-person events and engagement sessions, multiple times on different dates and time slots, allows everyone to participate in professional development opportunities regardless of where and when they work.

Proactive communication and intentional efforts to involve remote team members are essential for maintaining connectivity in a hybrid work environment. By providing various options for connection and ensuring inclusivity, organizations can create a cohesive and engaged team.

DG: What are some of the equity issues you’ve seen arise as the workplace went remote?

MC: Increased remote and hybrid work has brought several equity issues to light, particularly in the Federal government. One major concern is proximity bias, where employees who are physically closer to decision-makers tend to receive more attention, opportunities, and recognition. This can lead to an unequal distribution of resources and career advancement.

Another issue is recency bias, where supervisors may focus on recent performance or interactions, overlooking long-term contributions. This can affect performance evaluations, promotions, and rewards.

DG: Are there solutions for addressing those equity issues?

MC: It’s essential to establish transparent metrics for performance evaluation. Decisions should be based on objective data rather than subjective impressions, with regular reviews to ensure fairness. Encouraging structured feedback sessions between supervisors and remote employees can help discuss accomplishments, growth areas, and development opportunities, while addressing any biases that may arise.

Rotating leadership roles or project ownership among team members can ensure diverse perspectives and prevent the concentration of influence. During virtual meetings, it’s important to actively involve remote employees, using video conferencing to create a sense of presence and encouraging participation from all team members.

Recognizing that remote employees may have different time zones or family responsibilities, offering flexible schedules can accommodate diverse needs. Providing training that focuses on building inclusive cultures is also crucial and should be mandatory for all supervisors and team members. Promoting equity in remote work requires intentional efforts, ongoing assessment, and a commitment to fairness!

DG: Which groups would be hurt the most if the Federal workplace returned to pre-pandemic levels of remote work?

MC: The short answer? Most of us might if we moved back to a more inflexible work model.

If the Federal workplace returned to pre-pandemic levels of remote work, several groups would be significantly impacted. Younger generations, such as Millennials and Gen Z, who have become accustomed to the flexibility of hybrid and remote work, might struggle with work-life balance and overall well-being. Employees with disabilities would face reduced accessibility and increased barriers, as remote work offers them the necessary flexibility. Caregivers managing responsibilities for children or elderly parents would find it challenging to balance their roles without the flexibility remote work provides. Additionally, diverse communities could see a setback in diversity and inclusion efforts, as remote work has allowed for a broader talent pool beyond geographic limitations by tapping talent outside of headquarters and metropolitan office locations where there is generally a higher cost of living (which could also be a barrier to employment.)

From a generational perspective, Baby Boomers might prefer in-person interactions but still value flexibility. Gen X employees favor hybrid models that offer autonomy and adaptability. Millennials and Gen Z prioritize flexibility, purpose-driven work, and work-life integration, making them more resistant to a full return to the office. A focus on age-inclusive teams and training is key to prevent creating a divide or ineffective team performance.

Federal workplace trends show a mixed approach: While some agencies have reduced full-time remote work, emphasizing in-office presence, other Federal agencies continue to maintain hybrid models, recognizing the benefits of remote work. Recruitment and retention, especially in sectors like IT and healthcare, remain challenging, and remote work can help alleviate burnout and turnover.

In summary, a rigid return to pre-pandemic office norms could disproportionately affect younger generations, caregivers, and diverse communities who already experienced different challenges to employment and career advancement. Balancing flexibility, productivity, and well-being is crucial for the future of the Federal workplace.

DG: We keep hearing that remote work is a great recruitment tool. Is there any data to back that up?

MC: During the height of the pandemic when remote jobs were on the rise in the Federal government, interest in Federal positions as measured by the number of visits to USAjobs.gov, increased by nearly 3 percent. The Office of Personnel Management also cited increases in the diversity of applicants and an increase of applicants in certain remote positions as high as 25 percent more than those positions that do not offer remote or telework options.

Exploring the data on remote work as a recruitment tool, particularly for the Federal workforce, reveals some compelling trends. Reducing office space can save the taxpayers and agencies millions of dollars that can be invested in modernizing technology to deliver services to the citizens and invest in career development, skills enhancement, and modernization of the workforce. The data supports remote work as a powerful recruitment tool, offering flexibility, access to a broader talent pool, and cost-effective solutions for the Federal workforce. 

gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

It’s Time to Get HIP(AA) to the Hatch Act

, ,

By Dan Gephart, August 12, 2024

Quick facts:

  • A Federal contractor with no authorization to do so traveled to a conference in Russia to offer the host nation a “peace mission” to Mars.
  • A Federal employee who ran for Senate said he didn’t violate the Hatch Act because he was “unaware” of it.
  • Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger announced two important updates to OSC enforcement of the Hatch Act.

Remember a few years ago when everybody seemed to be an expert on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act? HIPAA (not HIPPA as those self-anointed authorities often wrote) is the Federal law that protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed by medical providers without the patient’s knowledge or consent. Too many people seemed to be unaware of the extent of the law.

The most telling example was when a congresswoman was asked at a press conference in 2021 whether she received the COVID-19 vaccine. She replied that the reporter’s question was a “violation” of her HIPAA rights. Now more people know: Not only does HIPAA not prevent reporters from asking elected officials about their vaccination status; it also doesn’t prohibit workplaces from asking the same question.

I sometimes think of the Hatch Act as the HIPAA of election seasons. For a law that impacts so many Federal employees, a lot still fail to grasp its aim or restrictions.

Take for example, the contractor who received permission to virtually attend the Global Space Exploration Conference in Russia in 2021. Singh-Derewa v. NASA, DA-1221-23-0239-W-1 (May 21, 2024)(ID). The contractor attended in person and identified himself as a NASA employee. (Note: To reiterate, he was a contractor — not an employee of NASA, although he once was employed by NASA, nearly 20 years earlier.)

It turns out traveling without proper clearance is a serious violation of Department of State travel requirements. Following a review of the incident, the contractor was suspended, and later terminated. He was also rendered ineligible for rehire.

After attempting to work with another contractor in the same space center, he filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, which included a Hatch Act component. If you’re scratching your head trying to figure out where the Hatch Act would come in, you’re not alone. Here are the details from the MSPB administrative judge’s decision.

[T]he appellant alleged NASA Administrator William Nelson violated the Act when he discouraged the appellant’s attendance at the 2021 GLEX Conference at which the appellant had planned to present a “peace mission” to Mars with Russia to prevent a “democrat war” with that country. Id. at 15, 21-24. The appellant further alleged Nelson had “collaborated with the Biden administration to prevent and discourage participation in ‘political activity’ that may prevent conflict and avert a potential nuclear war.”

As the OSC explained, and the AJ concurred, “even if the appellant’s allegations are true, they did not give rise to a Hatch Act violation because the alleged activity was not directed at the electoral success or failure of a political party.” Id. at 4.

Then there is the VA physician who ran for the Senate. OSC filed a Hatch Act complaint against the physician. His reply? “[B]ecause he was unaware that the Hatch Act prohibited his candidacy, he did not knowingly or willfully violate” it. Special Counsel v. Salekin, CB-1216-18-0004-T-1 (MSPB May 24, 2024).

The VA provided Hatch Act information in new employee orientation, maintained a Hatch Act FAQ page on its website, and sent Hatch Act emails to all employees in 2012 and 2014 – the year the physician tried to run for office. The physician did not open the 2012 email, asserting, “if I thought it was important to read, I would read [it].”

Ignorance, it seems, is no defense against a Hatch Act violation. It cost this want-to-be Senator a $1,000 fine and disbarment from Federal service for five years.

As we head into the election homestretch, it’s not the time to overlook the Hatch Act. You may not take it seriously, but OSC will.

In a recent op-ed piece for Politico, Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger put White House officials on notice that it was closing the “escape hatch.”  “[P]rior OSC statements that White House officials cannot face Hatch Act enforcement in the same way other federal civilian employees do are no longer in effect,” Dellinger wrote.

He also noted two important updates to OSC enforcement.

First, we will no longer automatically rule out bringing actions against former government employees. As the MSPB has advised: an “employee’s post-violation resignation does not eliminate the case or controversy between the employee and the Special Counsel concerning whether the employee violated the Hatch Act and, if so, what penalty is warranted.”

Second, the wearing or displaying of items in the workplace related to current political figures should be considered contrary to the Hatch Act regardless of whether it is before or after Election Day. Among the reasons for a blanket prohibition on such items while federal workers are on duty or in their office is the clear connection between political candidates and political parties. OSC has long advised that political party swag (T-shirts, hats, mugs) is banned year-round. It is logical and workable to apply the same rule to individual political figure paraphernalia, particularly items referencing presidential candidates who are, understandably, well-defined in the public’s mind as aligned with specific political parties.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are getting serious about the Hatch Act, too. The list of positions “further restricted” from partisan activity would grow under a new bill to include agency offices of inspectors general. The IGs would join the CIA, NSA, MSPB, OSC itself and more than a dozen other agencies that are held to more stringent standards than most Federal employees. gephart@feltg.com

Related training:

And Now a Word With … MSPB Chair Cathy Harris

,

By Dan Gephart, July 23, 2024

Twenty-two percent.

That’s approximately what is left of the nearly 3,800 case inventory that the Merit Systems Protection Board inherited when its quorum was restored in March 2022. MSPB Chair Cathy Harris’s swearing-in ceremony three months later gave the Board full occupancy, and the race to tackle those cases began in full.

Harris knew she had a monumental task before her, but she wasn’t worried about the actual work.

“I litigated before the MPSB and the EEOC for about two decades before I came into the job. And I thought I knew everything about MSPB cases. Oh, this is going to be easy, so simple because I know these cases.”

It wasn’t.

“There were all these cases I had no idea about which I never experienced dealing with as a litigator – restoration cases, for example. This is not something my firm focused on. And then the fact scenarios of these cases are always surprising. Just when you think you’ve seen it all, something else comes up. I’m not just talking about employee misconduct. I’m talking about how management deals with situations. The number of management errors and strange areas of misconduct that people get themselves into are just truly astonishing.”

We caught up with Harris two weeks after Henry Kerner, the former Special Counsel, was sworn in to bring the board back to full strength. [Editor’s note: We interviewed Vice Chairman Raymond Limon last month and an interview with Kerner is forthcoming.]

DG: Based on the cases you’ve reviewed, what’s the mistake made most often when it comes to discipline?

CH: One of the biggest errors I see is management choosing the wrong charge to try to encapsulate the employee’s misconduct. It shouldn’t be that difficult to choose the correct charge. Sometimes, management overreaches beyond what the employee did, or just mischaracterizes what the employee did and chooses a charge that’s just not appropriate.

To avoid these errors, managers should work carefully with [human resources] staff and attorneys to try to make sure the charge fits the misconduct.

The other thing I’d recommend is to try to resolve cases before they get to the Board. I see a lot of situations that could’ve been resolved through better communication, better performance management, better discipline management, better warnings to the employee instead of letting things get to a head.

I’m a big fan of mediation at the Board. I think if agencies were spending a little more time and resources on mediation internally, a lot of these problems would go away, and they’d have better outcomes with their workforce.

DG: In our interview two years ago, you said the Board was trying to identify cases that might be appropriate for settlement. How did those efforts go? And what did you learn from them?

CH: Our efforts, I think, were very instructive. We conducted a six-month pilot program from October 2022 through March 2023, called RAMP – the Rapid Assessment Mediation Program, where mediators worked full time attempting to settle appeals at the PFR level.

They settled quite a few. But when the pilot ended, we determined that our limited resources would be best used in issuing decisions in our inventory.

We continue to have a mediation process through our [Mediation Appeals Program or MAP], a well-established program in which administrative judges and other experienced, trained mediators on staff at the Board mediate cases. But the numbers are not that high in settlement at the PFR level. At the PFR stage, we find parties tend to prefer decisions. We’ll keep working on that. I do feel parties should be interested in settlement, even at the appellate level.

DG: Are there certain types of cases that lend themselves more to settlement?

CH: The cases in which there had been a change of law since the initiation of the appeal to the time the case was in the RAMP program. For example, the change in law from the Federal Circuit on performance, Chapter 43 cases. The agencies had to prove another element in order to prove their case. Because that wasn’t done across the board, I think those cases were more ripe for settlement.

Also, there was an evolution of law on the [Department of Veterans Affairs] 714 cases. And those also, I think, were more ripe for settlement at the appellate stage.

At the PFR stage, the parties are pretty set in their interpretation of the facts. The laws that evolved, changed, or crystallized, have allowed, maybe, the parties to get into settlement.

DG: Speaking of Chapter 43 performance actions, we’ve seen several remands because of the need for the pre-PIP Santos justification. Can you explain exactly what type of evidence and format the Board is looking for in Santos documentation?

CH: I can’t really speak to that because it’s different in each case. We look at each case very specifically. Agencies do things differently. Their performance management systems are different. There’s no one right way. Employees’ performance expectations are factually specific.

What I can say without giving an advisory opinion here is that the evidence and the format of the performance expectations need to be sufficient to meet the legal requirements of establishing whether an employee successfully performed under their performance plan. But that’s going to look different in each case.

DG: Early on, the Board seemed to be prioritizing whistleblower cases. As you continue to work through the case inventory and new cases, is there a new priority?

CH: Whistleblower cases make up about 25 percent of our docket. It’s a big percentage and we of course take our mission very seriously to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. We’re evaluating everything very carefully.

When I came on the Board, I said that I wanted to prioritize whistleblower cases. I wanted to prioritize cases where the person is most likely to get back pay. I wanted to prioritize cases that involve disability retirement, and pretty soon I’m listing almost every kind of case the Board has. Because they’re all important, right?

We do prioritize certain cases, but at this point it’s about dealing with the oldest cases and the newest cases at the same time.

DG: Have you seen any trends in new PFRs that are being filed?

CH: You know, MSPB cases reflect what’s going on in society as whole. We’re still working through the inherited inventory. I’m looking at cases from 2020, 2021. That’s mostly what’s on my docket now. We’ve been seeing cases involving COVID leave issues, COVID vaccine issues, and the like, issues involving telework, that expanded during the pandemic.

Our approach, which I think has been very successful, is we started with the oldest cases. We were also simultaneously doing the newest cases because we didn’t want to have a permanent case update review team updating the cases due to the passage of time, evolutions in law.

I’m doing current cases and older cases. We’re seeing different trends based on what’s going on in the world.

DG: Those topics – the COVID leave cases, the vaccine cases – bring me right back to 2021.

CH: Yes, it’s a little traumatic to look back, you know.

DG: Where are you at with the inherited inventory? 

CH: We have 22 percent left. I think we’ve done an incredible job. And, you know, agencies have backlogs for a lot of different reasons. I think the way we handled it can be helpful to other agencies and to ours in the future. What we did is very consistent with all the advice we’ve seen on how to handle a backlog of cases.

One, don’t hide your head in the sand, try to have a plan. Do prepare and don’t be afraid to put resources on tackling the backlog and shift things around, add resources, repurpose duties so you can make sure you’re addressing the problem.

The other thing we do really well at the Board is we have a good system for drafting opinions. We have an extraordinary team of lawyers in our Office of Appeals Counsel. They draft decisions for our review. They did an incredible job of queueing everything up for the Board Members.

We also have a very good Clerk’s office, who have done a good job figuring out where the cases are and how to get them to us.

The other thing we did very well–now, I wasn’t there so I don’t give myself credit for this, I credit the career employees, who during the lack of quorum, took the opportunity to transition to an electronically-based system from a more paper-based-system. This builds efficiencies and makes things a lot better, a lot quicker. This, I think, is the first Board to be doing everything electronically. When I first came, they were still carting some paper back and forth to the Board offices. I’ve looked at a paper file maybe five times in the past two years. I love paper, but it’s not efficient.

All of those things have been really helpful. I think staying mission-oriented helps, too. We really care about the fact that parties have been waiting for years for the adjudication of their matters. And that’s not fair. We feel terribly for them. It puts a lot of lives in limbo. So, I think we’re really motivated.

I think all of those things together is a really good recipe for eradicating an inherited inventory.

DG: What you’ve done will be a case study for years to come, I think.

CH: I hope our pain helps other people. I hope it’s helpful to somebody. I’m really proud of the work we’ve done. I think we’re working really hard, and it looks to me like we’re going to be able to wipe out that inherited inventory around the end of this calendar year.

Listen, there may be some cases that hold over because they’re hard or long or strange or thorny, but, for the most part, we should be in really good shape.

DG: According to last year’s FEVS, morale has fallen at the MSPB. What is the agency doing to address it? And what do you think is the cause?

CH: The FEVS scores come out earlier for agencies than the rankings come, so we’ve had that information for quite some time. We’ve been able to start to address it.

I think there are a few causes. It’s difficult for an agency to be without political leadership for an extended period of time. That had a significant impact on morale on the agency. I think the pandemic had a significant impact. There are a lot of unique aspects to our agency that have caused it to come to this.

What we’ve done is initiated what we call the Continuous Improvement Team to try to address the issues identified as most ripe for improvement through the FEVS and our own internal surveys. The four areas we’ve identified we need to work on most are:

  • Innovation
  • Management communication
  • Employee input on decision making
  • Work-life balance

This team got under way earlier this year. We have a Professional Association, otherwise known as a union, at our agency. We have members of the Professional Association and managers on the Continuous Improvement Team working together, as well as employees from other areas of the agency outside of the bargaining unit.

We’ve already engaged employees on the topic of innovation, regarding where and how folks feel the agency is not supporting innovation. In order to fix it, we first need to know what people mean.

The FEVS is a great starting point, but it doesn’t give you all the answers.

We need to be willing and able to engage to find out: What do you mean by innovation? How can we do better? What does innovation mean to you? We have to get in deep on these topics and find out ways we can take action.

The Continuous Improvement Team anticipates making recommendations on innovation this summer, which will be followed by more communication, and trying to figure out action items, and then we’ll move onto the next topic.

Listen, we have to try to improve. If we’re not trying, we’re not going to improve. I think we have the most dedicated and intelligent and mission-oriented employees in the entire Federal government. I want them to be happy and I want to understand what will make them happier.

I’m grateful for the FEVS and grateful for the Partnership for Public Service that enables us to look into these issues. We’re looking forward to finding out everything we can do to make things better.

One other thing. This is really important. One of the questions on the FEVS that concerns me most is: “I don’t think my response to the survey is going to make a difference.”

I can assure the employees at our agency that is absolutely false. We are taking these things very seriously. We’re devoting a lot of time and effort to analyzing the FEVS results over five years to try to isolate these areas, to figure out what can be better. We’re putting the time in to have a continuous improvement team.

I really hope people understand we’re taking it very seriously.

One of the areas employees identified is they fear reprisal for voicing concerns. We’ve done a lot of work to try to address that. We’ve done extra training for managers and supervisors this year to address how to handle employee’s perceptions regarding reprisal, how to better communicate.

This is our mission. We need to walk the walk and talk the talk. I want to make sure that’s something everyone knows. That’s something I can do as a leader from the top down to ensure that we don’t tolerate retaliation against any employee.

DG: Henry Kerner was sworn in recently as the third Board member. How important is it for the Board to have all three members?

CH: Two things.

First of all, we’re a bipartisan independent agency. So, having representatives from both parties makes us a better Board. It makes us more credible to the Federal employees we serve and to the public as a whole. You’ll see most of our decisions are unanimous, the vast majority, and I expect that to continue with Mr. Kerner joining us. That’s because the Board has built up a very robust body of law over the past 40 years, and it doesn’t matter what political party you’re a part of: We all support and protect the merit system.

That’s the first thing. It makes us more credible.

The second thing I’m particularly excited about is Henry can help us to get these cases out. The more the merrier, as far as I’m concerned. Henry is a great guy. He’s rolled up his sleeves. He’s already voted, and we’ve already issued some of the cases he’s voted on. We’re happy to have him. He’s a real pleasure.

Gephart@FELTG.com

Related Training