MINUTES
MINUTES
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS
Labor Management Relations Meetings
Washington, DC
November 27 - 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
9:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
BOC
What is the policy concerning GSA vehicles and safety equipment?
Response: There is no DOL policy and there are no GSA regulations. Conscious decision. No one size fits all for all areas of the country. More green considerations in purchases currently. Each agency makes its own decisions on the types of cars to purchased. Union believes there should be a policy with a minimum amount of safety equipment. Some employees have been caught in rapid weather changes and only for the fact that they brought their own safety gear. Minimum should be flares, jumper cables, Unacceptable to the union that there is no policy. Union expressed frustration that this issue has been punted from region to national and back.. Now OASAM national says that this should be addressed in the regions for the specific use of their vehicles.
10:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.
OCFO Yvonne Sims
What is the status of the customer satisfaction survey that GSA did on governmental travel systems? (DD) (66)
Response: DOL has the survey and is reviewing it before forwarding it to the NCFLL – probably within the next couple of weeks.
____________________________________________________________________________
How much longer will the National Finance Center be handling payroll for the Department? What entity will replace the NFC, if any, and when will this likely occur? The NCFLL would like to request input on the contract before it is finalized. (DW/BB) (67) (will be addressed by OASAM)
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the process for determining which travel vouchers receive an audit? Has that procedure change in the past year? (DD) (68)
Response: All vouchers are audited by the system. One in 100 are randomly kicked out for further audit. Any travel that is 15% over the authorization is audited. All political travel is audited – the Secretary’s travel, etc. All travel under 24 hours that involves airfare is audited – not local travel. All overseas travel is audited.
______________________________________________________________________________
You were notified about an issue with the screen display for split disbursement showing all of the monies going to the traveler. Has that problem been corrected? (DD) (69)
Response: This problem has been corrected.
______________________________________________________________________________
We have previously raised a concern about the Citibank web site not showing real time information for government credit card holders. Since OASAM has the ability to see this information why can’t credit card holders also see this same information? If the issue is the cost please inform the NCFLL of this dollar amount. (DD) (70)
Response: Citibank says that we will have that capability by late December and a Spotlight will be issued.
______________________________________________________________________________
Discuss the implementation of the recent MOU concerning government-wide changes in the accrual and use of compensatory time. How will employees and their supervisors be able to track expiration dates of compensatory time balances in DOL systems - (MOU Item IV. 6)? (PT/DD) (71) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
ETA – ATELS Tony Swoope
The NCFLL is requesting copies of all weekly itineraries that are required to be used in all states, including SAC states. (BH) (56)
Response: Union is concerned about consistency in the use of itineraries and why the information is needed. In some areas there is a lot of extra information being requested. Can we agree on a model itinerary to be used in the field?
Action: Union will submit a copy of the itinerary we’ve seen used and management will get back to us on this issue.
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL is requesting copies of all ATELS weekly reports that are required to be used in all states including SAC states. (BH) (57)
Response: This is the only weekly report form that is being used. It’s intended to give the Assistant Secretary an update on the activities in the agency. Union is concerned that these reports could be used in performance evaluation. Agency said that won’t be done.
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss any agency plans to close BAT offices. (BH) (58) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
The NCFLL has just been informed that ETA is replacing the RAIS system with RAPIDS, why wasn’t the NCFLL notified and allowed the opportunity for discussions consistent with the CBA. (BH) (59)
Response: The Union wants to work with the agency in committee to update systems as it has in the past. The agency agreed and will talk with VP Henson later this week about the makeup of the committee.
______________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans from the last meeting. What has been the outcome of the pilots? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (60)
Response: Speaking only for the ETA. OASAM has not yet finished the Departmental plan. ETA has finished a plan and is awaiting completion of the Departmental review. Union re-emphasized the need for notification if our bues are involved in the exercises in the field. OELMR says they will work with the agencies to make sure they comply with the MOU.
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
OASAM
Why didn’t bargaining unit employees receive the general notice on changes in DPR 550 & 551 by October 1st as required by the MOU on that matter. (DD) (62)
Response: A lot of difficulty getting through the many firewalls, agency access, etc. Timeliness affected by agency officials across the country. OELMR made a good faith effort and it was a lot more difficult than they had known. With this experience they will not be agreeing to email distributions of national MOU’s anymore. Union offered to distribute if the Department gives us the addresses of all bargaining unit employees.
______________________________________________________________________________
When was the decision made and implemented that employees applying for the over 40 year old Physical in Article 35, Section 2 B. would be required to pay any travel expenses and not given administrative time for taking the physical, that would mean only those people in a big city would be able to take advantage of something we bargained because of the time and cost of travel. (JW) (63)
Response: Union issue is where did OASAM decide to make people take annual leave. We understand that folks will not be reimbursed for travel. Policy is in the DLMS-1000 and it only states that DOL will pay for the physical itself – not the time or the travel.. Union has noticed that most of the physicals are taken by the bosses. Some agencies have covered the time as a past practice, in fact the union gave examples of 4 hours and more.. It doesn’t make sense to make employees take leave. Agency will look into the possibility of a DOL wide policy to provide administrative leave for physicals under Article 35.
______________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans from the last meeting. What has been the outcome of the pilots? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (65)
Response: Plans are not final yet. At least a couple of agencies haven’t completed their plans or met their goal. DOL is waiting for all to go through the review process. Union asked of there is a goal and timeframe. Department said that they don’t have a new date yet. The old deadline was the end of September. COOP plans are also being updated. When they are all completed they will be shared with the Union. NCFLL would also like to know what plan the union executive committee is a part of.
Action: Agency will try to get a date and get back to us.
2:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
OLMS Dave Geiss
The NCFLL has heard that Labor Investigators may be authorized to carry guns in the office. Discuss. (RY) (135)
Response: No. The investigators have asked for authorization and the management has answered no. Since 1995 the investigators have been designated as LEO’s (Law Enforcement Officers) and they conduct criminal investigations where they feel they may need to carry firearms. The Secretary of Labor has been against it all along.
____________________________________________________________________________
Is the agency establishing new requirements for credit cards issued to local union officials? Discuss the applicable regulation in this area. (RY) (136)
Response: Mr. Geiss is not an enforcement person anymore so we should speak with Kaye Oshel (693-5609) for OLMS enforcement position.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans. What has been the outcome of any pilot projects? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (137) (will be addressed by OMAP)
3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
BLS Bob Gaddie
Bargaining unit people across programs are quietly telling us that they are reluctant to let management know when things are not working well. In the Price Programs in particular, there is a feeling that raising issues that involve either problems with technical issues or process, are a good way to kill one's career. BLS management both regionally and nationally may indicate they want feed back, but the perception from the bargaining unit is that the reality is that communication is one way and the real message being sent is "shut up and do what we tell you to do". While this approach may have some short term benefits, it does pose more problems in the long term, such as staff retention and failing processes, that more than offset any short term benefit. Is BLS management aware of this problem? What would BLS management be willing to do to try and change this situation? (BB) (1)
Response: Union will get back to the agency with more specifics on this and management plans to provide some guidance to the field on how to address the communication problems.
______________________________________________________________________________
In the CPI program, there is a drive to find more and more errors in the work. This is causing friction between bargaining unit staff who do review and the economic assistants. Regions with low error rates are being criticized, in some cases, harshly. There does not seem to be any basis for this approach, other than the fact that it does generate an easily identifiable quantative number. The literature on how to run a quality organization, such as from the Juran Institute, says that at best this approach is counter productive and at worst can do serious damage to an organization. The union is concerned about how the staff is being treated under this approach and consider it to be abusive in nature. What steps will BLS management take to change this process? (BB) (2)
Response: Agency is trying to address a particular issue in this region with respect to the identification of errors and the quality of work. Gaddie might be there sometime in January to deal with these concerns.
______________________________________________________________________________
Retention problems are being experienced across programs and across regions. At regional LMRs the union has been told that the reason for the turnover is that BLS hires such good workers that they are snapped up quickly by the private sector. This is not what those who leave are telling the union. We are hearing that poor working conditions in a number of programs are the reason why people are leaving. Some of the situations involve the processes and some of the situations involve how people are being managed. People leaving put undue pressure on those who remain who have to get deal with the increased workload. In effect this is causing a work speed up. The union has concerns about the work speed up in particular and would like to hear how BLS management plans to deal with what is becoming a serious problem in the regions. (BB) (3)
Response: The agency is not seeing much different in attrition rates. Working on exit surveys for when people leave to see how improvements might be made. There are “lumps” of turnover following attainment of the journey level grades and when employees go back to grad school, for example.
______________________________________________________________________________
Currently national BLS management has regions competing against one another in a form of a horse race based on production numbers. The union is being told in confidence that corners are being cut by some regional management in order to finish high in the rankings. This leaves our bargaining unit staff vulnerable in terms of being left holding the bag when things go wrong. While the union can see some short term use for a system like this, we have concerns about the impact long term on both the working conditions of the bargaining unit and the viability of the programs. What is BLS management willing to do to ensure that if this practice is continued that regional management will be held accountable for cutting corners and not the bargaining unit staff who are following their direction? (BB) (4)
Response: National office wants a balance between quantity and quality. Will follow up in personal visits by Bob Gaddie.
______________________________________________________________________________
The constant demand to beat milestones because of the horse race has caused some field economists to not turn in completed work. The work is the minimal needed to claim a complete. When the schedule is transferred to another field economist, they are then held accountable for the poor work and expected to fix it, despite the fact they are not allowed the time to do so on an update. The time to do the work is allocated to the initiation, not the update. The field economists who are not doing all of the work at initiation, generally have good production numbers, which in turn makes regional management look good in their appraisal. Management in turn gives these good producers a good performance evaluation, despite the fact they really are not doing the complete job. The other field economists who are expected to complete the work do not fare as well because they either have to eat the time it takes to fix the schedule, or they have an hours per schedule figure that does not allow them to exceed the standard and in some cases to barely meet the standard. What is BLS management going to do to resolve what has become an unfair practice? (BB) (5)
Response: National office wants a balance between quantity and quality of work. Will follow up in personal visits.
______________________________________________________________________________
Why do the EA’s have no access to Peopletime? (JW) (6)
Response: All EA’s have access to Peopletime. If anyone doesn’t, they should get back to us.
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the status of the “work around” on the EA’s tablet computers? (JW) (7)
Response: The union will have someone call Gaddie for more detail on this issue.
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the status of the problems with the ‘Tablet’s” touch screen keyboard? This may be causing problems with data input and data accuracy. (JW) (8)
Response: There were problems with the touch screens in the past but not now. There have been no calls to the Help Desk that the agency could find. Local 644 will have someone call Bob Gaddie (202-691-5800) directly with the information.
______________________________________________________________________________
How does the majority of the EA’s access the internet when out in field or at their residence or alternative workplace i.e. dial up modem or broadband? (JW) (9)
Response: The agency provides a dial up capability with the agency phone card or the employee can come into the office. They will not reimburse internet broadband bills.
______________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans from the last meeting. What has been the outcome of the pilots? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (10)
Response: Plans have been submitted and are awaiting the Department’s review.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
OASAM Dennis Sullivan – NBC
How much longer will the National Finance Center be handling payroll for the Department? What entity will replace the NFC, if any, and when will this likely occur? The NCFLL would like to request input on the contract before it is finalized. (DW/BB) (67)
Response: DOL went to a competitive bid to replace the NFC by September 2009. The new system is called the Federal Personnel Payroll System and will be run through the National Business Center run by the Department of the Interior in Denver, which has over 400 employees servicing only federal employees over 40 agencies. There are about 300,000 employees currently under this system. There will be a full parallel testing of the two systems leading up to the transition in the spring and summer of 2009. The official payday under the new system will be switched back to Friday instead of Monday. A major advantage to the new system will be the automatic integration of the payroll and personnel functions so that changes will take effect in both systems simultaneously whereas now a change input to the personnel system takes up to three weeks to be picked up in the payroll system. The union expressed concerns about the new system’s abilities to handle the dues checkoff and the new compensatory time regulations – specifically the tracking of expiring comp time. Mr. Sullivan said he would take these issues to the table prior to the conversion.
______________________________________________________________________________
10:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.
OSHA
Discuss the agency policy regarding Hepatitis B vaccinations. So that the parties can have a well informed discussion the agency should provide information on how many employees have received the vaccination and how many employees have indicated they do not want to take the shots. (HS) (122)
Response: There have been two post-exposure treatments within the past five years, so it’s not a frequent request. The folks who went to help out after Katrina were generally given Hep A shots. The union feels that anyone who wants a Hep B shot should be given one. OSHA feels that the risk is so low that post-exposure treatments are appropriate. Post-exposure treatment is as effective as pre-exposure vaccination. The union pointed out that some school systems require children to be vaccinated. OSHA claims it isn’t financially feasible to follow all public health recommendations. The shots cost $350 per person. The union pointed out that even WH investigators have received the shots before conducting field sanitation investigations and that some have received shots under their health plans for $20 co-payments. We don’t know how many people would request the vaccinations. OSHA considers some sites as particularly appropriate for pre-exposure treatments, including hospital operating rooms and morgues. The union is advising employees to grieve the matter when necessary. The union expressed concerns that the agency is being hypocritical since it would cite employers for some of the exposures that our people are subject to.
______________________________________________________________________________
OSHA employees who reported to the Gulf for the Hurricane clean up were provided with one Hep A shot, but not the second in the series. Will these employees be provided with the second Hep A shot? (NN) (123)
Response: Hep A is very different from Hep B. It is fecal-oral. Katrina brought sewage exposure possibilities. OSHA didn’t require employees to get the shot. Further, they don’t know who got the shots but if they self-report they will be given the second shot which provides lifetime immunity. OSHA will distribute a notice to this effect. The public health service and FEMA provided the initial shots and OSHA will pay for the second shot which costs about $80 - $100.
______________________________________________________________________________
Please discuss the NRC user survey conducted in August/September of this year. Who were the participants, how were they chosen, what were the survey results? Will additional surveys be done? Does OSHA contemplate making changes to the IMIS web forms? (NN) (124)
Response: The agency doesn’t know what we’re talking about. Nothing was done through the OSHA information system.
______________________________________________________________________________
Are there Systems Administrator’s or other IT staff, in the Regions, who are authorized to monitor and/or access OSHA bargaining unit employees’ computers? If so, how many of them are there, where are they located and what are their job classifications? (NN) (125)
Response: No. Occasionally the OIG has gained access.
______________________________________________________________________________
Why are some instructors at OTI posting test results on bulletin boards? (JW) (126)
Response: They post by personal identifiers know only to the individual students and should not be posted by name. OSHA will issue instructions to that effect and get back to the union.
______________________________________________________________________________
Are there any considerations being given to consolidation of OSHA Regions? (NN) (127)
Response: None.
______________________________________________________________________________
Discuss the new OSHA HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM and the Inspection Procedures for the Chromium (VI) Standards (NN/JW) (128)
Response: The union wants training and documentation procedures. For hearing baselines the agency relies on Federal Occupational Health. The program is still a work in progress and is undergoing global review. The union is concerned about proving worker’s compensation claims.
______________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans from the last meeting. What has been the outcome of the pilots? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (129)
Response: The agency has met the due dates for submission of the plans.
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the Department’s policy on “appropriate credentials” for DOL employees when conducting inspections/investigations at military installations? How does the installation notify DOL when their procedures change? What is the procedure for DOL employees who arrive at a military installation where changes have been made and the DOL employee has not been notified of the change? (NN) (61)
Response: Depends on the military installation. Where there are specific security clearances required by the military, the agency has made certain that someone has the appropriate clearances in the offices with jurisdiction. Guidance in the FIRM is to contact the AD when denied entry. The agency will work some more on it and get back to us.
VPP Briefing (Management item)
Handouts A, B and C and MOU dated February 26, 2004. It’s a performance based program. It centers around a comprehensive safety and health system and it goes beyond the OSHA standards. Eight federal agencies with over 100 sites are in VPP. The Assistant Secretary wants to do VPP agency-wide. The agency maintains that the MOU dated 2/26/04 is in effect and that they are following it, notwithstanding that it was not carried over in Article 60 of the National Agreement. The union pointed out that any decision to include additional sites would need to be dealt with in collaboration per III. 4 of the MOU. We probably need a national template for all to follow.
______________________________________________________________________________
11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
SOL David Pena
District and Bankruptcy Courts have made SOL attorneys responsible for the e-filing of documents with the courts. To assure confidentiality, the courts required that each attorney have a user name and password. In at least one region, bargaining unit employees (non- attorneys) are being told to train for the e-filing of those documents. Management has suggested that the attorneys “…will have to provide you with our username and password.” This seems like it would be a violation of Departmental security policies. It also seems to violate the intent of the courts. Please comment fully, providing the SOL policy on this issue. In which regions is e-filing already done? In which is it not yet done? When will those regions that are not e-filing begin? (BT) (119)
Response: Every District Court in the country has been requiring e-filing for quite some time. Attorneys have passwords and technical support staff will use those same passwords to accomplish the filing for them. It is DOL’s understanding that this a universal practice (private law firms as well) and that the courts have no problem with it.
______________________________________________________________________________
The Union wants a full discussion on the role of Abacus in the contracting out process and what the expected outcome of the interviews are. (BB) (120)
Response: There is no contracting out in the SOL right now. The Abacus is trying to assess the needs of the office, track the workload and determine what resources would be necessary. The surveys went to everyone. Not sure when the target date for completion might be, but at least another two months.
______________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans from the last meeting. What has been the outcome of the pilots? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (121)
Response: It has not been submitted yet but it is imminent. There was no testing done in the field.
1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
MSHA
Follow-up items:
MSHA has not provided the requested documentation to insure BUE’s will not be harmed by the removal of office answering machines. Previous information was not complete and requested additional information was never provided. (RC) (11) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
MSHA has not followed up with regard to MNM requiring inspectors to incorporate the use of line diagram maps, area time notations, and root cause documentation in their field notes. Agreement was reached that MNM would not require this in the field notes, but it is still a requirement in most field offices. (RC) (12)
Response: The agency does not require this information in cases. Management needs more information to respond to the particulars. Southeast, South Central and Rocky Mountain – in Dallas, Denver, Little Rock and Helena. Management wants who, when, where, date, place time. Union suggests that management send out an email reminder of the NO policy and that it was discussed at the LMR table. Management agreed to do this.
______________________________________________________________________________
Specific information requested for the Leadership Development Program has not been provided regarding the numbers of applicants selected, the number of applications who were not selected, the criteria used for making selections, and if all positions to be filled are specifically in or out of the BU. (RC) (13)
Response: 70 selected through posted vacancy announcements 65 didn’t meet requirements. Criteria listed in vacancy announcements. Final selections made by committee. All positions will be outside the bargaining unit.
______________________________________________________________________________
In March, MSHA MNM agreed to respond to the NCFLL regarding the consistency of changing and or creating of local travel areas. This conversation has not taken place. (RC) (14)
The parties agreed to remove this item.
______________________________________________________________________________
In March, Bill Henson spoke with HR about who the responsible party was to provide the Union reps at the Academy with the reports required in Article 32. The reports are still not being provided. (RC) (15)
Response: Karen will send out Article 32 Items C,E,F, I and J.
______________________________________________________________________________
Office support staff are being told by MSHA that they will not be allowed to work flexible work schedules. What has changed to bring about this management action? (RC) (16)
Response: Questions from Districts 7 and 10. Cases are scheduled for arbitration. Discussion was limited by this.
______________________________________________________________________________
Inspectors are being told they will be liable for the mine operators lost time and repair costs to correct a violation if they issue a citation at the mine and the citation is then changed or vacated by the conferencing officer. (RC) (17) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
______________________________________________________________________________
Inspectors are still telling the Union that equipment and PPE is not available for the new inspectors. We are told they are borrowing equipment from the mine operators. Is this an acceptable practice condoned by MSHA management? (RC) (18)
Response: Specific to Districts 3, 4 and 5. They were canvassed and no problems noted. Union has heard from the inspectors that they are borrowing all kinds of equipment and PPE’s, including cap lamps, coveralls, methane monitors, etc. Management said that many things have been ordered. Agency generally shuts down purchase cards in August for year-end preparation but in this case management has instructed districts to continue purchasing equipment – particularly PPE. Management offered to go directly to the employees rather than the MA’s for this information. Management is also OK with the Union rep in the office gathering this information for them.
______________________________________________________________________________
In March 2006, in response to a request by the Union, management committed to provide the Union with documentation on how and why the agency has reversed a long standing policy and practice contained in the Mine Act about Mine Inspectors having at least 5 years of mining experience to be hired by the agency. Who made this determination? On what basis was the determination made? The request for this documentation was again made at the July LMR meetings and MSHA management committed to provide this. We are still waiting! (RC) (19)
Response: Mine Act actually states, “to the extent feasible”. Agency is complying with the Act but sometimes can’t find people with 5 years of substantive mine experience. Union says that many good people who don’t pass the math tests should still be considered based upon their mine experience. Management suggests that those folks can go out and take classes or use the on-line study guide to improve their chances of passing the math test.
______________________________________________________________________________
At the July LMR meetings, the Union requested MSHA to provide information/documentation regarding the SE District telling Inspectors that under a “Fair Notice” provision, and something called the “Good Decision”, that they did not need to issue citations for observed violation of the Law. MSHA management committed to look into this and respond to the Union. We are still waiting! (RC) (20)
Response: Management and the Union agree that this is not the way that the Good Decision should be interpreted.
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss the instructions that were given to MNM inspectors regarding working 1st Forty. Inspectors were recently told the only reason to extend their workday over 8 hours was for; Health Surveys, To issue orders, and inspectors can extend their workday to 9 hours if it is a long drive to the mine. (BH) (21)
Removed from the agenda by mutual agreement of the parties.
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss the instructions that were given to MNM inspectors informing them they must be out of the office by 9:30AM on Mondays, and to work at least 3 hours in the office on Fridays. Some offices are saying to be out by 10:00am. If they are not out by 10:00am, they must give the reasons why in writing to the supervisor. Management is not willing to put their directions in writing. The Union requests that these instructions be rescinded until proper notification is made to the Union of the change in working conditions and negotiations completed. (BH,RC) (22)
Response: There has been no directive to this effect issued by headquarters. In fact they are offering OT to achieve this goal. Management would rather see folks out in the field instead of the office to achieve the goal. They may be checking up on the efficient use of time. The inspectors are resisting the pressure to take shortcuts to meet the goal. N.O. management doesn’t want to see folks cut any corners in their inspections. ______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss the policy directions that were issued by Tech. Support for use by the inspectors when they find an explosive air mixture behind seals. This procedure exposes our inspectors to hazards that are not necessary. The guidance requires the inspector to take a sample, if the air behind the seal is inert that is the only test required. If it is not inert, the inspector must wait for one hour and take another sample and then wait another hour to take another sample to substantiate the potential hazard. This extended action places the inspector is a critical position to be injured, and requires him/her to keep company and miners representatives in a hazardous area for extended periods of time. This policy needs to be corrected to improve the safety of our inspectors. (BH) (23)
Response: There’s a sill regulation that will be in place in February 2008. In the meantime they are not requiring anyone to stand by the hot seal. DM’s will be instructed to share this with the employees.
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss MSHA’s plans and directives to replace GOV’s with compact vehicles. The Union raised this issue at the last LMR and management requested copies from the Union of previous instructions and commitments made by MSHA regarding this issue. These documents were emailed to LeFawn Gaines the following week. Does MSHA intend to follow their prior commitments? (BH,RC) (24)
Removed by mutual agreement of the parties.
______________________________________________________________________________
Some Districts in Coal are still requiring the use of Line Diagram Mine Maps. The decision was made at Hqts. and the ITS committee that Line Diagram Maps or Mine Maps could be used by inspectors for tracking of events. The NCFLL would like for Hqts. to notify all Districts of these options for inspectors to use. (BH) (25)
Response: In District 1 there is an issue with one individual. Couldn’t determine tracking for him with a single line diagram.
______________________________________________________________________________
As part of a settlement agreement for a ULP that required LMR training for Management Officials in MSHA, the HR office was to send the; time period of the training, what the training was to consist of and who attended the formal training. Management has not complied with their part of the agreement, and the NCFLL request the answers be provided at the National LMR. (BH) (26) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL was informed that in District 6, phone cards have not been provided and employees cannot call the office to leave messages for sick leave. The union was informed in August that all employees would be provided with phone cards or would remain access to answering machines in the office. This issue needs to be addressed by Headquarters. (BH) (27) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Have the 2005 and 2006 Safety Award been paid? The NCFLL request a listing by name and office location of those who have been paid and the amount paid. Also, what steps has MSHA taken to give employees who requested it, time-off in lieu of cash that was paid for these FY’s? (BH, RC) (28)
Response: Yes, the awards have been paid. A listing was provided to VP Coon at this meeting. Letters have been provided to individuals who requested time off in lieu of so that they can provide it to their payroll offices.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Medical Review Officers continue to not except the attending physicals medical reports for employees returning to work. The MRO continues to ask for additional information or more tests, this is also occurring with fitness for duty physicals. Headquarters was to have fixed this problem over a year ago; it appears it needs to be addressed again by the appropriate HR staff. (BH) (29)
Response: Withdrawn by union.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Inspectors in both Coal and MNM are being informed at during their annual performance appraisals that they are not writing enough citations and orders. Some Districts are even setting the number of citations or orders that are to be issued based on the amount of time at the mine site. The NCFLL would like to discuss the use of the direct issuance of citations and orders as numbers that must be met in order to meet inspector performance standards. Inspectors are also being rated on the incidence rates of the mines they inspect. Please explain what control the Inspectors have over this. (BH, RC) (30)
Response: All factors must be considered, not specific number goals. VP Brandt gave an example of an employee who was dunned for “only” doing 50 inspections in the year – the first time he had heard that there was a number goal in mind. VP Henson pointed out that employees are also being told in performance appraisals that they haven’t written enough citations. Management agreed that employees should never be hearing for the first time that their performance is lagging at the time of the actual performance appraisal.
______________________________________________________________________________
Inspectors are being ordered by management to write citations at mining operations that are shut down for maintenance and/or repairs. If they do not, their performance appraisals suffer. Has MSHA made a shift in policy to allow for the issuance of citations on non operating mines and equipment? Provide the NCFLL a copy of the policy or guidance for such practice. (BH) (31)
Response: MSHA still has to inspect such mines as employees are continuing to work there.
______________________________________________________________________________
Prior to the July LMR meeting the NCFLL requested specific information on the Career Management Development Program. To date the NCFLL has not received anything we ask for. The NCFLL requests the information be provided at the November LMR. (BH) (32) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
The NCFLL has been informed that IDP’s that are being developed are prototypes and employees are not having any input into them. The NCFLL has spoken with numerous career interns and they informed us of this situation. How does one IDP fit all interns? The intent of the IDP is for employee development and it needs their input. Is management willing to correct this? (BH) (33)
Response: Prototypes were developed by HR for the interns but are done with inspector input for the inspectors. Interns don’t know the job yet so management doesn’t believe they know enough to contribute to their IDP.s The union disagrees and thinks that the interns should be involved in the discussion and development of their “individual” plans. In addition there is an MOU that the union intends to enforce. Management would like to know of any specifics and also any training that employees feel should be available in their IDP’s
______________________________________________________________________________
Provide the NCFLL a detailed list of cap lights, boots, coveralls, and inspection equipment that has been provided to inspectors within the past 3 months by office. What additional equipment is being reported to Hqts. as needed by the Districts? The NCFLL is still getting reports that in some areas inspector trainees do not have the necessary equipment to travel to the mines and are using their own or borrowing from the mines. (BH) (34) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
______________________________________________________________________________
At the July LMR, MSHA told the NCFLL that they would be willing to sit down and discuss a uniform way to set up local travel areas to eliminate some of the perceived misunderstanding. This conversation has not taken place. The union would like to discuss it at the November LMR. (BH) (35) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
______________________________________________________________________________
Inspectors in the RM District have been told that if they issue 5 or less citations or orders at a mine, they must ask the operator to provide them a room or area in which to write the citations/orders. When did MSHA begin to require, or ask, the mine operator to provide their facilities to do MSHA’s work? At what point does MSHA distinguish between this practice and asking the mine operator to provide any equipment the inspector needs to do their job? In lieu of this practice, the Inspectors have been told they must write the citations/orders in their GOV’s before they leave the mine property. Most of the GOV’s are not ergonomically correct for Inspectors to do this. Again, this change in practice is not in writing nor has the Union been notified. (RC) (36)
Response: Yes, management would encourage inspectors to complete citation write-ups and reports when possible at the mine. The union argued that inspectors feel micro-managed with hard and fast rules on the number of citations. Here again management believes that some employees (a minority) need this kind of guidance. Management would appreciate any union suggestions that help in this case.
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss why MNM Supervisors are being instructed to perform regular inspections. This change was not shared with the union or addressed in any manner prior to implementation of change. (BH) (37)
Removed by mutual agreement of the parties:
______________________________________________________________________________
MNM management is once again informing inspectors there are only limited reasons to extend the work day. Is this direction coming from Hqts? If it isn’t, will MNM commit to reissuing the 1st 40 settlement agreement to all employees. This very issue was raised in a grievance by the NCFLL and settled by MSHA about 2 years ago. (BH) (38) (The parties have agreed to remove this item from discussion)
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss when and why the Academy started giving typing test to students. This was not shared with the NCFLL prior to implementation. (BH) (39)
Response: Keyboarding exams have been given for seven years. No one has been denied a diploma over it. Why wasn’t the notice given to the union seven years ago?
______________________________________________________________________________
The NCFLL would like to discuss why some districts are requiring employees on OWCP to record their time as AWOL time. (BH) (40)
Response: At no time should an employee on OWCP be required to report it as AWOL time. Management will look into District 4 specific employee indicated by the union.
______________________________________________________________________________
Discuss the agency policy regarding Hepatitis B vaccinations. So that the parties can have a well informed discussion the agency should provide information on how many employees have received the vaccination and how many employees have indicated they do not want to take the shots. (HS) (41)
Response: Policy deals with blood borne pathogens. Management does not believe that the risk associated with taking the shots is worth it. Union suggested that management look into post-exposure treatments for a new policy application. Union mentioned that VP Nolan had a Hep B vaccination for $20 through her health care provider. Management agreed to take this information under consideration for the development of a policy.
______________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans from the last meeting. What has been the outcome of the pilots? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (42)
Response: Next test will be in April 2008. Plan has been submitted to the Department for review.
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the Department’s policy on “appropriate credentials” for DOL employees when conducting inspections/investigations at military installations? How does the installation notify DOL when their procedures change? What is the procedure for DOL employees who arrive at a military installation where changes have been made and the DOL employee has not been notified of the change? (NN) (61)
Removed by agreement. OSHA item.
______________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, November 29, 2007
10:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.
ITC
Please provide introductory training and a demonstration of PointSec encryption. (DW) (64)
Response: A powerpoint overview was presented to the NCFLL executive committee. The HELP DESK number is 202-693-4444 and Jacqueline Coleman is the Data Encryption Project Manager. Her number is 202-693-4178.
______________________________________________________________________________
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
EBSA Virginia Smith, Brian MacDonald
Union Background: The union expressed our concern that the Philadelphia region didn’t respond to these or similar questions. We will share the regional email so that the agency can compare and determine if more information should have been shared in the region.
Discuss the implementation and potential bargaining of the new Investigative Check sheet. (JW) (72)
Response: The Investigative Guidelines for the review of individual benefit statements were prepared by the Office of Enforcement when Congress amended section 105 of ERISA. Currently, EBSA investigators are required to determine whether a plan is in compliance with the reporting and disclosure provisions of ERISA by completing an ERISA Reporting and Disclosure Checklist (see Chapter 48 of the Enforcement Manual). Because the amendments to section 105 changed some of the disclosure provisions of ERISA, the checksheet currently in use is incomplete. The Investigative Guidelines were designed to provide investigators with an up-to-date investigative tool to supplement the current checksheet.
Current status: The Investigative Guidelines were shared with the NCFLL on October 11, 2007. Without the investigative guidelines, the field investigators will have to investigate these issues without the benefit of this valuable investigative tool.
______________________________________________________________________________
Please provide some background on the Qualified Termination Administrator Management System [QTAMS]. (JW) (73)
Response: QTAMS is a network-based automated system allowing for multiple simultaneous users. Its purpose is to provide program management capability for the tracking and administration of the EBSA’s Abandoned Plan Program. The system keeps track of data related to the abandoned plan and the Qualified Termination Administrator (QTA). QTAMS tracks the status of pending plan terminations under the program and allows for rapid communication between the EBSA national and regional offices. The searchable system serves as an electronic record file by retaining scanned documents sent to EBSA, recording the applicable determinations, and generating automated correspondence. Additionally, QTAMS provides information that helps monitor the distribution of benefits to the participants and beneficiaries of abandoned individual account plans.
______________________________________________________________________________
Has guidance been provided to the designated EBSA investigator/auditors in the field concerning Qualified Termination Administrator Management System [QTAMS]? (JW) (74)
Response: Extensive guidance has been provided through face-to-face training, net meetings, and teleconferences. The QTAMS Users Guide appears on the EBSA intranet and is easily accessible by all field personnel.
______________________________________________________________________________
Who has the authority to approve a financial entity as a Qualified Termination Administrator [QTA] of an abandoned plan(s)? (JW) (75)
Response: The National Abandoned Plan Coordinator makes the initial determination as to whether a financial entity qualifies as a QTA under the regulations. The regional Abandoned Plan Coordinators review the National Abandoned Plan Coordinator’s decision and can discuss the finding if there is a difference of opinion.
______________________________________________________________________________
Who is the approving individual for Qualified Termination Administrator Management System [QTAMS] for each Regional Office? (JW) (76)
Response: EBSA Regional Directors and individuals designated by the Directors have been given full approval rights in QTAMS. Group Supervisors and other office managers are the designees. There are currently 32 field office personnel with these approval rights.
______________________________________________________________________________
Why doesn’t OPPEM have access to EMS system? (JW) (77)
Response:
EMS access is provided to EBSA employees on an as needed basis. Currently, there are no employees in OPPEM who need access to EMS. When an EBSA employee demonstrates a work-related need for access, he/she is provided with a user identification. Otherwise, data from EMS can be obtained easily and quickly by requesting it from OE. Only OPPEM and the office of Regulations and Interpretations do not have access to the EMS system.
______________________________________________________________________________
What other EBSA agencies that do not have access to the EMS system and why? (JW) (78)
Response:
EMS access is provided to EBSA employees on an as needed basis. Currently, one or more employees in the following EBSA offices have access: Office of Policy and Research, Office of Technology and Information Services, Office of Participant Assistance, Office of Exemption Determinations, Office of the Chief Accountant, Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance, Office of Enforcement, and all field offices.
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the percentage of criminal time [Program 52 investigations] charged to the EMS 214 time sheet for each Regional Office and District Office for the past 5 years. (JW) (79)
Response:
Of the total investigative time available, the following was charged to criminal investigations nationally:
2003 11.93%
2004 13.63%
2005 16.11%
2006 14.19%
2007 13.12%
|Region |2003 |2004 |2005 |2006 |2007 |
|Atlanta |14.12% |13.18% |12.68% |10.74% |11.53% |
|Boston |9.95% |12.67% |13.50% |11.43% |13.74% |
|Chicago |10.55% |10.61% |17.70% |17.13% |14.74% |
|Cincinnati |5.64% |11.10% |15.72% |13.03% |14.29% |
|Dallas |20.84% |25.02% |24.42% |16.69% |12.55% |
|Kansas City |11.48% |10.86% |18.96% |14.69% |13.98% |
|Los Angeles |11.41% |16.19% |18.42% |18.99% |11.84% |
|New York |15.44% |18.96% |15.79% |16.31% |15.98% |
|Philadelphia |9.45% |8.48% |13.49% |11.89% |10.41% |
|San Francisco |11.18% |10.06% |11.81% |13.34% |11.86% |
|Total |11.93% |13.63% |16.11% |14.19% |13.12% |
What is the breakdown of investigators who are classified as 1801 investigators or as 511 auditors by Regional Office and District Office? (JW) (80)
Response:
Chart provided by OPPEM:
|Region |FY 2003 |FY 2004 |FY 2005 |FY 2006 |FY 2007 |
| | | | | | |
|Atlanta |40 |41 |39 |42 |44 |
|Boston |42 |42 |45 |46 |42 |
|Chicago |35 |30 |28 |35 |30 |
|Cincinnati |38 |40 |37 |33 |41 |
|Dallas |32 |33 |32 |34 |32 |
|Kansas City |40 |40 |39 |41 |40 |
|Los Angeles |28 |30 |29 |26 |27 |
|New York |35 |36 |33 |36 |33 |
|Philadelphia |32 |32 |25 |30 |29 |
|San Francisco |44 |39 |38 |42 |45 |
What has been the percentage investigators who are classified as 1801 investigators or as 511 auditors by Regional Office and District Office over the past 5 years? (JW) (81)
Response:
See chart above.
______________________________________________________________________________
Does any of the Regional Office currently permit the Benefit Advisors [BA] flexi-place? If yes, is it episodic or formal? How frequent do the BA’s use the flexi-place arrangement? (JW) (82)
Response:
A few regional offices permit Benefit Advisors to work episodic Flexiplace. These episodic Flexiplace arrangements are done very infrequently.
______________________________________________________________________________
Do the BA’s have use of a laptop during flexi-place? (JW) (83)
Response:
BAs permitted to work an episodic Flexiplace schedule have had access to a laptop.
Please provide a break down of the number of support staff by grade by Regional Office and District Office. (JW) (84)
Response:
|Region |FY 2008 Authorized Support |On-Board Support Staff |On-Board |
| |Staff |(as of 11-1-07) |Support Staff |
| | | |Grade Range |
|Atlanta |7 |4 |GS 5-7 |
|Boston |4 |3 |GS 5-6 |
|Chicago |4 |4 |GS 5-7 |
|Cincinnati |6 |4 |GS 5-7 |
|Dallas |4 |3 |GS 5-7 |
|Kansas City |5 |5 |GS 5-7 |
|Los Angeles |3 |3 |GS 5-7 |
|New York |4 |4 |GS 6-7 |
|Philadelphia |6 |5 |GS 5-7 |
|San Francisco |6 |6 |GS 6-7 |
What constitutes or should be charged to “Case Development” on the EMS 214 timesheet? (JW) (85)
Response:
The EMS User’s Guide provides instructions on what should be charged to “Case Development” on the EMS 214 Time Module:
“Case Development—time spent by field personnel in developing targeting systems and conducting in-house targeting activities (e.g., review of annual Forms 5500, accountant opinions, computer listing, surety company contracts, etc.) for identifying entities to be investigated. Also includes time spent developing leads from complainants or other sources for case openings.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Can the initial research [EDS, GSS, Westlaw, etc.] to support a case opening be charged to Case Development on the EMS 214 timesheet? (JW) (86)
Response:
Sometimes--it depends on the facts of the situation.
______________________________________________________________________________
What constitutes a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act [PRA]? (JW) (87)
Response:
Chapter 53 of the Enforcement Manual provides the following explanation:
“Standardized inquiry letters must be used with extreme caution because of the strict requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The PRA prohibits the use of certain standardized letter requests for information without prior approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Inquiry letters containing requests for identical information may not be sent to more than 9 persons unless individual investigations have already been opened.”
The PRA generally prohibits an agency from conducting a collection of information unless certain requirements, including Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, are met. An agency conducts a collection of information if it obtains, solicits, or requires the disclosure of facts or opinions through answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements on, ten or more persons within any 12 month period, whether such collection of information is mandatory or voluntary and regardless of whether the information is requested orally or in writing. For the purpose of PRA, telephone calls are the same as inquiry letters.
Has any training been provided to the field concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act and possible violations associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act? (JW) (88)
Response:
PRA for Auditor/Investigators:
On June 23, 2006 the Office of Enforcement disseminated a guidance memorandum captioned, “Application of the Paperwork Reduction Act to Case Targeting and Civil Investigations” to the regions. The memorandum is archived on the EBSA intranet under “General OE Guidance” and is available to all EBSA field personnel.
PRA for Benefit Advisors:
Yes. Discussions of the need to comply with the PRA have been included in Outreach training at annual OEA managers’ meetings.
______________________________________________________________________________
Is there a national policy on awarding points for work in progress. Can a Regional Administrator make this decision on a case by case basis? (DD) (89)
Response:
For work in progress, points from 0 to the maximum amount allowed for the type of case can be awarded if it can be demonstrated that work was performed. Points are awarded at that time and then if the case is closed or has dispositive action must be subtracted for the next rating cycle. For example, if a VC letter was issued then “work in progress” points can be awarded. If the case is closed during the next rating cycle, then these points must be subtracted.
______________________________________________________________________________
Update the status of the agency Pandemic Flu plans from the last meeting. What has been the outcome of the pilots? Please provide copies of any plans submitted to the Department. (PT) (90)
Response:
The following website contains the most recent information on the Agency’s Pandemic Flu plans: .
______________________________________________________________________________
1:00 p.m. -1:30 p.m.
ESA/OMAP
Pandemic Flu Plan for ESA
OMAP coordinates all Pandemic Flu plans for ESA and therefore responded to this item on behalf of the component field agencies.
The Union expressed frustration at the lack of any notice prior to testing in the various regions. In particular, an exercise was conducted in Wage & Hour in San Francisco involving bargaining unit employees without prior notice to the Union. A grievance has been filed. In another exercise in New York WHD the bues were taken out of the test. In Dallas WH the union found out about the exercise ahead of time and was involved in the planning. In Boston WH an exercise is being conducted today without prior notice to the union – assuming that there are bues involved. Management will issue notice from the national office to the labor relations staff in the field to keep this from happening again.
Please discuss the status of encryption in all ESA agencies. Has this process had an impact on ESA programs such as iFECS, WHISARD, etc.? (NN) (43)
Response:
The Department has developed a Pandemic Influenza Preparation and Response Plan (the Plan) to ensure the safety of its employees in the event of a potential Pandemic Flu outbreak. The Plan can be found on the Department’s website (). The Plan employs “social distancing” to effectively reduce personal contact and exposure during such period. Additionally, the Plan required Agencies to designate “essential personnel” to ensure the continuity of mission critical and statutory functions during such time an outbreak may occur.
In conjunction with the Plan, ESA has developed test telework exercises to confirm the functionally of its electronic systems and further ensure designated employees access to critical records and files. Essentially, ESA’s operations should be seamless despite the multiple remote locations occupied by individual employees during a potential Pan Flu emergency.
An Agency approved telework exercise schedule began in May 2007. We have attached the most recent schedule for your convenience. As noted, the schedule incorporates the Agency and its component programs. However, testing is limited to individuals who may perform mission critical, statutory functions and access to critical systems.
The outcomes of these exercises were to expose potential weaknesses or problems within the Agency’s systems and the Agency’s ability to address these issues in advance of a Pandemic emergency. Some the problems revealed included: Some employees lacked equipment to perform telework exercises such as laptops, personal PC’s and broadband Internet services, and their unfamiliarity with using a laptop to connect to the ESA network and working with the remote access systems. As a result of these exercises, ESA have been able to resolve some of these conditions and is currently addressing any outstanding problems revealed during the exercises. Eventually other aspects of telework will be addressed as part of our Pandemic Influenza implementation Plan and ongoing testing, training and exercise program.
Management representatives: Ruben Wiley/Mike Netherland.
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the status of the OMAP-DITMS reorganization? (NN) (44)
Response:
The reorganization goes into effect November 25, 2007.
Management representatives: Steve Cohen/Duane Eldridge
______________________________________________________________________________
1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
ESA/WHD
WAGE AND HOUR
45. Some months ago it was reported in the Northeast Weekly Report that the Whisard database had been compromised and was available on the internet. Largely, the focus has been on investigators and support staff to protect PII and to insure that file information is secure. What steps have Wage Hour or DTMIS taken to prevent non-DOL individuals from gaining access to information contained in the Whisard database?
Response:
We are not aware of a “breach” in the WHISARD database. There is a firm that has FOIA’d the WHISARD data base and has put it on their website, but the information was disclosed under FOIA and is in the public domain.
______________________________________________________________________________
46. What is the status of the agency’s budget? NN
Response:
As you know DOL is on a continuing resolution; therefore, we are operating under the same budget allocation as last year until such time as a budget is passed and signed into law.
______________________________________________________________________________
47. The administration proposed to add investigators in order to address the growing inventory of aging complaints in its budget request and the expected retirements of investigators over the next three to five years. How many investigator positions are being added, if any?
Response:
During FY 2007 each Region was allocated 5 WHI to hire in the spring and for FY 2008 each Region was allocated 5 WHI to hire after October 1, 2007. Any additional hiring will be dependent on the budget.
______________________________________________________________________________
What is the current on board staffing of investigators? Of support staff? How does this compare with prior years? NN
Response:
FY WHI Support
2004. 788 176
2005. 773 177
2006. 751 165
2007. 737 167
_____________________________________________________________________________
48. In what offices and regions and when will this hiring take place? NN
Response:
FY 2008 prospective hiring of WHIs (Some of these hires may have reported for duty by now)
NE Region Mountainside, NJ DO, Lawrenceville, NJ DO, NY, NY DO (2), Long Island DO, Hartford, CT DO
SE Region - Memphis, TN AO, Louisville, KY DO, Jacksonville, FL DO, Tampa, FL DO, Augusta, FL FO (Georgia/Atlanta, DO)
MW Region - Duluth FO (Minneapolis DO), Troy FO (Detroit DO), Peoria FO (St. Louis DO), Kansas City DO
SW Region - Tulsa, OK FS, Monroe, LA FS, Lubbock, TX DO, Dallas, TX DO, Houston, TX DO
West Region - Los Angeles, CA DO, Fresno FS, Orange AO, Seattle, WA DO
Hiring for support staff is on an as needed basis.
______________________________________________________________________________
49. The Northeast Region weekly report recently noted that a rural Davis Bacon Act wage survey involved two outside contractors who conducted these wage surveys. Has the agency outsourced this work? NN
Response:
We are not aware of the specifics of the question. The University of Tennessee has been engaged in data collection and some verification of data since the late 1980s.
______________________________________________________________________________
50. Discuss the new NCS laptop deployment. We have heard that the setup is taking days, the files are not compatible, and other deployment issues. What is the current schedule? Will such problems be addressed before further deployment? NN
Response:
NCS laptops were scheduled for deployment 10-11-07 to 11-30-07, DTMIS has promised deployment will be done by 12-07-07.
There were field users (WH users that attach to the ESA network through SEATS rather than a direct connection/dedicated ESA link) who were not be able to log on to the laptops once received. WH IT is working with the regional IT coordinators to determine which field users will be affected by this issue. WH IT then contacts those users and provides a temporary password after connecting the laptop to ESA domain and creating a local Windows user account on the laptop. This allows the WH user to log on to the laptop once they receive it or coordinates with the Regional IT coordinators if shipped to a field office.
______________________________________________________________________________
51. Discuss the agency policy regarding Hepatitis B vaccinations. So that the parties can have a well informed discussion the agency should provide information on how many employees have received the vaccination and how many employees have indicated they do not want to take the shots. HS
Response:
WHD has a policy, it is on the web site at . This training is being added to the pre-Basic 1 training and we will remind the RAs to remind their staff of the policy and availability of vaccinations. Employees who need/desire the Hepatitis shot should notify their immediate supervisor.
WHD does not keep records of individuals who elect to receive the shots or who decline to receive the shots for medical confidentiality reasons.
______________________________________________________________________________52. What plans does Wage and Hour have to provide Hepatitis B booster shots? What information is provided to new hires with regard to the initial three Hepatitis B series of vaccinations? How many of the initial three Hepatitis B series of vaccinations were administered in each of the last four fiscal years? DW
Response:
WHD has a policy it is on the web site at: . Booster shots are available through the public health service. Employees who need/desire the booster shot should notify their immediate supervisor.
WHD does not keep records of individuals who elect to receive the shots or who decline to receive the vaccinations or boosters for medical confidentiality reasons.
53. If a matter goes to arbitration in Wage-Hour, is it agency policy that all related travel costs come out of the travel budget for the impacted District Office? DD
Response:
There is no “national” policy regarding this issue, if the arbitration is a “national” issue the NO pays and if it is a Regional or local issue the Region pays. Each Region has a discretionary budget and allocates travel to meet the needs of the Region.
______________________________________________________________________________
54. Investigators have questioned the requirements for Spanish proficiency in the solicitation of investigative assistance in the Gulfport, Mississippi area. Discuss. NN
Response:
We have, in fact, detailed non-Spanish speaking WHIs to Gulfport. They have all been detailed from within the Gulf Coast DO to Gulfport. The reason that the call for assistance from outside the DO has been for Spanish speaking WHIs is that the Gulf Coast DO has only one GS 12 Spanish speaker. He is stationed in Gulfport. Since the Hurricane, we have hired two Spanish-speaking trainees for Gulfport and recently hired a Spanish-speaking trainee for nearby Mobile. There is a significant workload in Gulfport that requires Spanish speaking and it is difficult to predict when we will need an experienced Spanish speaking investigator. Therefore, for now, we believe the best use of our resources is to bring in experienced, Spanish-speaking investigators.
______________________________________________________________________________
3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
ESA/OWCP
91. During previous LMRs, the issue of the poor performance of the data base used by FEC medical schedulers was discussed. It was agreed that improvement was needed. Recently, it has been reported from FEC offices that there are continuing problems with that data base – the medical physician listing/rotation in iFECS. Numerous listings provide no contact data, insufficient contact data and/or incorrect contact data. Also, individual case provider rotation does not permanently bypass a provider. Instead, it reroutes the employee back to the previously bypassed providers. Dropping a provider from the data base is still a cumbersome process. Please provide an update of efforts to correct and improve the system.
Response:
The data to populate the medical appointment scheduling system was purchased from a vendor. Despite extensive searching, only one viable vendor could be identified. The vendor chose to include physicians in their database for which they did not have adequate contact information, which clearly does not work for our purposes. Their data is actually leased and is updated at intervals as specified in the contract. We are scheduled to receive updated data in January 2008. Before this new data is placed into the system, we plan to filter out physicians when there is insufficient contact information available. Enhancements to the medical appointment scheduling system are high on the iFECS short term priority list. However, we do not want to make changes until the new data is in place so that we can better determine what may be a systemic problem as opposed to a data problem.
______________________________________________________________________________
92. Field offices in FEC used to receive bulletins when there was a change in the way case work was to be accomplished. For years they came as hard copy. Then they started coming by Folio Views. Now, CEs do not know what they should consider official communication. CEs sometimes get e-mails or Powerpoints from NO stating a new way to accomplish a task – sometimes they do not get any communication but find out about it retroactively. For instance, there was to be a bulletin concerning 3rd party procedures since SOL in DC now gets those cases. In April, CEs received the Powerpoint but no bulletin has been received. Was that official notice? Another instance, senior CEs just found out that there had been a percentage increase in overpayment interest in effect since January. Lacking written communication, how were they to know? When CEs go to NO for guidance, they receive “not for file” e-mails in reply. Some requests for guidance and the replies are complicated. CEs need official replies – something to reference to “back up” their actions.
Response:
When we moved our procedure manual from a binder with paper to an electronic document, we discontinued mass mailings of hard copy bulletins and transmittals as there was no longer a need for these documents. (Each district office is still provided with several hard copies and individual employees can request to review paper copies from their district director, if they are so inclined.) Barbara Williams, Chief of the Branch of Regulations, Policies and Procedures, prepares a monthly internal guidance document entitled, “Monthly Reminder Items & Synopsis of DO Guidance” that is distributed to all of the district offices and shared with the claims staff. The guidance document includes a section entitled “What’s New in Folio-views”, where Ms. Williams announces new bulletins and transmittals that were posted during the month. The bulletins and transmittals remain the official notice of any change in procedure. In response to the specific examples cited, the procedure manual was updated to reflect the SOL’s centralization of processing of third party cases several years ago. The Powerpoint was merely an instructional tool to ensure behavior more consistent with established procedure. The bulletin to announce interest rate changes on overpayments was admittedly delayed. However, when we instituted the change to the interest rate, this information was entered into iFECS and the system automatically applied the correct rate to overpayments without additional action required of the claims examiners. When National Office issues a “Not for File” e-mail, this is to present our interpretation of existing procedure and evidence in a specific claim, and not an official announcement of new procedure.
______________________________________________________________________________
93. Please provide an update and progress report on the flexplace pilot project in SF-FEC. How many BUEs are eligible to be involved? How many are actively involved? When will this be expanded to include more employees? What are seen as the practical advantages of flexplace? What are seen as the problems needing to be overcome? Note that the NCFLL respectfully requests that OWCP Shelby Hallmark attend this meeting to discuss this important pilot program.
Response:
The flexi-place pilot is underway in San Francisco. After initial planning and polling of interest, the first work from home started on September 27, 2007. Initially 18 Senior Claims Examiners (SRCES) were eligible. Two more employees recently became seniors and they are going to be afforded this opportunity. Of the 20 eligible employees, 17 have expressed interest in participation. It was initially planned that the SRCES would download cases onto laptops and carry the laptops to and from the office in order to work at home. In addition, the participants were given tokens from DITMS that enable them to use Citrix to access e-mail from the system while working out of their homes.
At this same time, we were requested by the Department to identify candidates to participate in a work from home test, in an effort to prepare for a pandemic flu or other emergency situations. As these employees had Citrix access, 6 of the SRCEs were identified to serve as our testing team. They were given access to iFECS at home through Citrix as part of the test. A limited number of iFECS applications and functionalities are Citrix-ready.
San Francisco management has requested SRCEs to work on reconsiderations and remands while working at home. One of the advantages they have found is that there has been good productivity in these areas. Presumably the atmosphere allows employees to focus on more complex case work. Those who have limited iFECS access through Citrix have reported liking this feature. Obviously, to the employee there is the advantage of no commuting.
Problems have also been identified. Employees complained of slowness in connections and getting knocked off of the Citrix system. Carrying the laptops is burdensome. There have been some home connectivity issues and difficulty in obtaining tokens. The biggest disadvantages were noted with the SRCEs’ work as mentors for less experienced claims examiners and in covering their own case loads. San Francisco reported that employees left in the office tend to go to their supervisors or other SRCEs present in the office for technical guidance, rather than calling the assigned SRCE at home. Also, for those SRCEs who carry some form of case load, their claimants do not get return calls or telephone access to their designated examiner on flexi-days.
Because the SRCEs with iFECS access reported a favorable response and less reliance on the laptops, San Francisco is in the process of securing access to limited iFECS through Citrix for the other 11 participants. The pilot is scheduled to last for 1 year, with the option to continue it beyond that point. There are no plans to include employees other than the SRCEs at this time.
______________________________________________________________________________
94. Recently, PointSec encryption was installed in FEC. It has caused iFECS slow-downs. It has even caused problems with mixing data from one case file to another. It has so slowed the uptake of data that the employees are now able to work faster than their computers can record the data. How has this improved the security of PII? What is being done to correct this situation? The onus for PointSec-caused-misfiled-data must remain on the Department rather than the employees. The employees did not cause the problem and they cannot fix it.
Response:
PointSec encryption was a Departmental requirement and not a decision of OWCP management. When problems arose from the deployment, we quickly reported these to DITMS. DITMS corrected the problem and reported that as of November 13, iFECS was back to operating at pre-PointSec speed. We cannot differentiate documents that may have been misfiled related to PointSec issues versus other errors. We ask that employees closely review all documents before releasing copies outside of the program to ensure that we are not creating a privacy violation.
______________________________________________________________________________
95. What is the minimum number (or percentage of cases in a universe) that is adequate for an accurate sample for determining employees’ performance? Please answer for FEC, ENERGY, FAB, Black Lung, and Long Shore. (Tucker)
Response:
FEC: In DFEC, standards are decided locally and sampling to rate performance under the standard is also a local decision. For example, KC reported that they use the accountability review criteria (we have a chart that dictates sample size based on population with the largest sample being 38) or 25% of the population, whichever is less. The minimum sampling criteria is 25 or 100% of the population if it is less than 25. Cleveland reported that it depends on the population, but they generally sample between 20 and 40. The sample is always available for the employee to review if requested. Jacksonville reported that their supervisors are required to review an average of 5 cases per month within each category.
ENERGY and FAB: There is no set minimum number or percentage of cases that is considered to be adequate for sampling for determining an employees’ performance. The number of cases sampled depends on the measurement. Timeliness measurements that are based on information from ECMS generally include all cases that are in the universe during the performance period. For quality measures, most supervisors review employees’ work throughout the rating period, and sample additional cases as needed.
BLACK LUNG: In the Black Lung program the timeliness of completion of virtually all significant claims adjudicatory and maintenance activities are recorded on automated Management Information System reports. Supervisors select samples of the completed work from these reports to review for the quality of the work performed. There are no established minimums for the number or percentage of actions which are required to be reviewed.
LONGSHORE: There is no minimum in Longshore.
______________________________________________________________________________
96. It has been reported in some ENERGY Offices that newly hired employees are not trained to the extent that they can exceed or even meet their standards. Supervisors are not mentoring and/or training their employees. Please comment fully and discuss how these new employees can be properly trained and how this might impact their retention. (Tucker)
Response: Each office is responsible for conducting its own training for new claims examiners. National Office has provided program-wide training on Part E and a variety of other topics. Because of constant changes in the program, significant training is required on an ongoing basis. Senior Claims Examiners (in the District Offices) and the Hearing Representatives (in the FAB) are responsible for day-to-day mentoring. We are not aware of retention problems based on a lack of training.
______________________________________________________________________________
97. There are continuing problems with E2 Travel. Employees continue to report that it takes too long. Please discuss the concept of management assuring that employees maneuvering through E2 will be afforded adequate time without repercussions from supervision. (Tucker)
Response:
With the exception of FEC Hearings and Review staff and the Energy FAB staff, OWCP Bargaining Unit Employees are not required to travel often. While there continues to be frustration with E2, OWCP staff are allowed the time needed to complete the tasks required by E2 Travel without repercussion.
______________________________________________________________________________
98. The NCFLL would like to re-address the issue of the journey level of ENERGY CEs. Since the program began, many responsibilities have been added to the CE duties. Part E has generated a great deal of work and increased the complexity of the position. With the inclusion of consequential conditions, impairment, binding medical decisions, and the use of second medical opinions, came an increased need for medical understanding and interpretation. The potential for ongoing medical maintenance of cases has vastly increased. Please discuss the process by which the ENERGY journey level could be increased to GS-12, to match other DOL journey levels. Are there plans to upgrade? If not, why not? (Tucker)
Response:
Journey level CEs in DEEOIC do not have signature authority, which is a critical difference from the other programs. We think that the level of payment involved in DEEOIC decisions warrants review by another person, and we therefore do not wish to delegate that authority to the regular CE. With the addition of Part E, we increased the number of GS-12 Senior Claims Examiners in each claims unit, and would consider adding more if needed.
______________________________________________________________________________
99. There is the perception in ENERGY that there are many cases of bargaining unit employees not receiving a within grade increase (WIGI) in the usual timeframes (1, 2, or 3 years, as appropriate to step). Please discuss fully and provide rationale for the denial of WIGIs. Please list the number of such denials per DO with the number of BUEs per office. (Tucker)
Response:
The existing bargaining unit agreement permits employees to be rated as needing improvement on a standard without having been placed on a PIP. As a result, employees so rated do not receive a WIGI because they are not performing at the fully satisfactory level.
______________________________________________________________________________
100. There is the perception in ENERGY that there are many cases of bargaining unit employees not receiving a career ladder promotion in the usual (one year-in-grade) timeframe. Please discuss fully and provide rationale for the denial of promotions. Please list the number of such denials per DO. (Tucker)
Response:
See above. If performance is not fully satisfactory, no promotion is given.
______________________________________________________________________________
101. In ENERGY, a high percentage of the newer employees (within the past few years) have been hired as term employees. As time went on, some have made requests for reasonable accommodations for disabilities. For some reason, The EEO Manager was not contacted or was contacted very slowly, taking months. Such delays stifle the process of reasonable accommodations. Please discuss fully. Does OWCP treat term employees different in relation to accommodations than it does career employees? What can be done to correct this inequity? (Tucker)
Response:
There should be no difference between permanent and term employees. We are not aware of inequities.
______________________________________________________________________________
102. What is the status of iFECS?
Response:
We have deployed a number of releases to improve iFECS without any major unforeseen errors introduced. The release notes for each update over the past year have been shared with the union prior to the release. The next major release is planned for December 17th. This release will include fixes for defects reported from the field and approved by the Change Control Review Board. Detailed notes of the changes included will be provided prior to the release in accordance with our agreement. We have established a Priority Review Board to determine short and long term priorities for iFECS upgrades based on analysis of need, costs, benefits and time.
______________________________________________________________________________
103. Has the backlog with iFECS been reduced?
Response:
Our former contractor worked the reports of iFECS errors in a disorganized and haphazard manner. We have subsequently made great efforts to make sure all reported errors or enhancement requests are first approved by the Change Control Board and then categorized by type and priority. We put a good deal of effort into scrubbing the lists of defects to eliminate duplicates or errors that were corrected on subsequent releases but not purged from the logs. The backlog of iFECS fixes has been greatly reduced through these efforts. There are still a great number of legitimate enhancements and fixes planned for iFECS. However, these will be staggered over a number of well planned and well tested releases with minimal disruption to the system.
______________________________________________________________________________
104. What is the status of the pilot flexi-place project in San Francisco?
Response:
(See Question #93)
______________________________________________________________________________
105. What are the issues that need to be addressed from the pilot flexi-place project in San Francisco?
Response:
(See Question #93)
______________________________________________________________________________
106. Will the Claims Examiners be required to use a laptop when they are on flexi-place to access FECA? If no, what is or are the alternatives?
Response:
(See Question #93)
______________________________________________________________________________
107. How many claims has the New York City Longshore Office processed for those contractors injured in Iraq and Afghanistan? JW
Response:
21,334 from 9/1/2001 through 9/30/2007 (including 11,984 claims with no lost time).
______________________________________________________________________________
108. How many of those claims were death claims? JW
Response:
1,168
______________________________________________________________________________
109. Flexiplace & technology. WH has solved issues of accessing files and reports that contain PII & Privacy Act information from locations other than District Offices. Is there anything preventing OWCP from using the Internet, “token” (or other) technology, to have CE’s work from flexiplace locations? Isn’t it best to anticipate Congress’s concerns about pandemic flu, reducing commuting, by moving forward on flexiplace technologies now? PT
Response:
DFEC Senior Claims Examiners participating in the flexi-pilot and hearing representatives do use the token already to log into the system from other locations. (Please see the response to question 93 for specifics on DFEC as part of a broader question on the flexi-place pilot.) There is limited iFECS availability through Citrix access.
The Longshore, Black Lung, and Energy claim files exist only in hardcopy form and their contents are not available on line. All of the files contain confidential information, including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), medical, psychological, financial, and other privacy-protected materials. Because they contain materials which require secure handling, they are not allowed to leave the district offices, except for limited purposes. Because the work of the Claims Examiners requires ongoing access to these claims files, flexiplace work arrangements can only be accommodated on an ad hoc basis, and then only for work that does not require claim file access which is limited.
______________________________________________________________________________
110. How can BUE’s monitor their performance throughout the year, against the numbers in their performance standards? Can they do this, using iFECS? If so, how?
Response:
BUEs can use the OQS report suites to monitor their own performance throughout the year. Although these reports do not provide a percentage score of performance, they do let staff know exactly what work is pending within their assignment and when the work is due. These reports are available to track: all pending unadjudicated claims by category and age, all reopened claims by age, pending reconsiderations, recurrences and remands by age, deferred compensation claims by age, unanswered tracked correspondence by age and QCM claims with no intervention. The reports also give the examiners their actual PRM resolution counts.
______________________________________________________________________________
111. If Managers regularly change CE’s “number blocks,” how can anyone have confidence that CE’s performance is being measured accurately?
Response:
Managers strive to minimize number block changes. However, staffing changes do occur and all number blocks must be covered. Management production reports track work both by responsible claims examiner and user ID. Therefore, performance can be tracked by the examiner who actually did the work rather than just work done within a number series.
______________________________________________________________________________
112. Have changes in performance standards done anything to improve office performance overall, as measured through accountability reviews?
Response:
As noted in the response to question 115 below, performance standards are determined locally. Therefore, a change to a performance standard could only impact one review and not the program as a whole. The National Office does not monitor changes made to performance standards locally and therefore, we would be unable to address any impact such changes may have on accountability review scores. If a deficiency is noted on accountability review, and local management determines that it was attributable to insufficient attention focused in that area, a change to performance standards would be a reasonable approach toward correction. However, we would not have an accurate mechanism to determine the actual cause for any subsequent performance improvement; this could be attributable to training, increased staff experience, performance standard changes or many other factors.
______________________________________________________________________________
113. Has iFECS done anything to improve OWCP performance when measured by program plan measures? Has it in fact increased opportunities for errors?
Response:
As shown in the response to question 115 below, the FECA program performed well in comparison to most of our program goals in FY 2007. However, we have no objective means of measuring the cause(s) for this successful performance. We presume that this is attributable to many factors including the use of the iFECS system. By design, iFECS integrates related actions and carries the user from one step to the next, or sends reminders and tasks about necessary actions. Therefore, iFECS should reduce opportunities for errors that existed when the user was required to manually move from one application or task to the next. For example, in the prior FECS system and in the iFECS system presently, the claims examiner could change the pay status in a claim and forget to delete the actual payments. A case could appear to be closed or denied, while automatic checks actually continued. In an enhancement scheduled for December 17th, iFECS will no longer allow the user to remove a pay status from a case without a corresponding action to actually stop the payments.
______________________________________________________________________________
114. How is employee turnover affecting office performance? What are the figures on turnover? Have some District offices actually shrunk? If so, which ones, and by how much? How are retirements going to affect the Agency? How many BUE’s, what percentage of BUE’s, are eligible for retirement? PT
Response:
OWCP Response: All four OWCP programs hired more staff than were lost. In total, there were 264 hires and 168 separations, a gain of 96. The Energy program had the largest net increase (47) and FEC the second largest (13). During FY 2007, the District Offices have not shrunk; the Black Lung program is using turnover opportunities in the National Office to increase FTE in the District Offices.
Retirements of eligible BUE’s have been spread over time which has enabled OWCP programs the ability to adjust hiring and workloads. The number of OWCP BUE’s eligible for retirement total 159 or 9% of on-board staff. Black Lung has the highest percent eligible (24%), FEC has 10%, Longshore 8%, and Energy just under 3%. With the exceptions of the Black Lung Charleston and Johnstown District Offices and the FEC Philadelphia, Denver, and Seattle District Offices, 30% or more of the staff eligible for retirement became eligible in 2006 or 2007.
______________________________________________________________________________
115. To what extent are prototype standards being used for CE’s and Senior CE’s in the FECA program? Are there currently National prototype standards? Are there Regional prototype standards? Are there variations in CE and Senior CE standards within Regions (i.e., between District Offices)? What GPRA or DFEC goal is behind each standard? To the extent that numbers in the standards are governed from the NO (e.g., timeliness), what is the foundation for the numbers? What are the actual numbers, on a National basis, that were achieved in FY 2007? To the extent that the numbers are derived Region-by-Region, what is the reasoning behind the differences? What was actually achieved, Region-by-Region, in FY 2007?
Response:
There are no prototype standards for claims examiners set by the National Office. Four of the six regions, the Northeast, the Midwest, the Southwest and the Pacific, have more than one DFEC office within their jurisdiction. None of these four Regional Directors reported having prototype standards for the district offices within his or her region. Standards are all determined at the district office level. The National Office does establish a yearly program plan which delineates our goals for the year. Field managers are held responsible for meeting program goals; therefore, local standards tend to be very similar as they are designed so that individual performances collectively achieve set goals. However, there is variation in structure and work flow within the districts, and district office standards are written to best measure the work as it is performed locally. National Office determines program plan goals based on multiple factors including past performance, desired improvements and findings on audits and reviews. Performance on program plan goals is measured by district office rather than regionally.
2007 Performance Plan Results:
LPD Traumatic Injuries Basic Occupational
Disease (ODs)
Goal ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- benefits of walking 30 minutes a day
- 3 minutes speech topics
- health benefits of walking 30 minutes daily
- benefits of walking 60 minutes a day
- money in minutes payday loan
- walk 30 minutes daily
- benefits of walking 30 minutes per day
- linkin park minutes to midnight
- math minutes grade 3
- 1st grade math minutes pdf
- math minutes 6th grade pdf
- examples of 10 minutes presentations