NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS · Web viewLinguistic Services (140 languages)…When a...

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALSLMR AGENDA

October 19 -21, 2010

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Reserved

Management Attendees: Doug Betten, RA-OASAM San Francisco, CA.; Ed Hugler, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Operations-OASAM; Doug Goodell, Director-OELMR; Diane McFadgen, OELMR. (T. Michael Kerr, Assistant Secretary-OASAM joined the meeting from 11:30 to 11:45 am)

BACKGROUND

This time was reserved by OASAM to discuss the September 23, 2010 letter sent by President DeMay to T. Michael Kerr concerning the state of labor relations between the NCFLL and DOL.

Mr. Hugler: We appreciate the letter from the NCFLL. We agree with the letter that delays in responses to NCFLL inquiries are not acceptable by the management side of the table.

OELMR Structure

Mr. Goodell: Local 12 represents 18% of all bargaining unit employees in DOL and OELMR spends a higher percentage of time focusing on Local 12 issues vs. NCFLL. We are realigning our OELMR staff to address workload issues for both the NCFLL and Local 12.

LMR Meetings

President DeMay: In preparation for the June 2010 National LMR Meetings, we submitted our agenda early for the agencies to review and come to the table prepared to discuss issues. During the LMR meetings, we had some requests for follow-up information from some agencies, which they agreed to provide; however, some agencies were not providing us with a response as they promised.

Mr. Hugler: No agency has a right to ignore Labor Relations and we can deal with this.

President DeMay: We have the same problems at the regional LMR meetings in obtaining information. Also, our regional NCFLL representatives are told that an issue raised is national in nature and needs to be raised at a national level.

Mr. Betten: I agree with President DeMay with the problems at the Regional level. A good example is safety and health issues that are brought up at Regional LMR Meeting by the NCFLL and are told to take it up with the Field Safety and Health Committee. We have allowed this to fall into disarray.

Mr. Goodell: We will continue to hammer the managers on providing information to the NCFLL at the Regional levels. Issues should be addressed as they come up. We will put something out on this so the issues can be addressed in a more positive manner.

EVP Weyrauch: This is the same problem at the regional level. Management believes that it is an imposition on them to attend LMR meetings. We have a lack of respect by management at the regional levels with the LMR process.

Mr. Hugler: We need examples of bad management behavior at the regional levels.

Regional Labor Management Relations

Treasurer Wheeler: Who in the Atlanta Region the NCFLL should deal with on labor management issues?

Mr. Betten: Gerald Davis is the Labor Relations Officer but there are Labor Relations Specialists who handles specific agencies.

Mr. Hugler: We realize that there is a problem in the Atlanta Region and it will be taken care of; however, it will take some time.

Treasurer Wheeler: I continue to be told this but we still have problems in getting our issues addressed.

Mr. Betten: This can be fixed but it will take someone to focus on it. If answers are not being addressed, they need to be elevated to the Regional Human Resources Director and then the RA-OASAM. If the issues are not addressed at the regional level, needs to be elevated to the national level and Mr. Hugler has a way to deal with this.

EVP Weyrauch: The problem with Regional Labor Relations Specialists is their lack of knowledge involving our contract.

Mr. Betten: No step 2 decisions should be issued in the region without it being cleared with Labor Relations.

President DeMay: Treasurer Wheeler has previously brought up problems with travel authorizations/vouchers getting approved for NCFLL Council Officers in the Atlanta Region. Why is Atlanta such a problem?

Mr. Hugler: We will look at this problem and see how it can be streamlined.One possibility is to route the problem through a region that can handle the problem.

2

Mr. Hugler: We need to have a rap sheet on who in Labor Relations handles particular issues/agencies at the Regional level.

Treasurer Wheeler: We need to see a structure from Labor Relations in order for them to understand the contract and its process.

Hugler: We will start working on this.

President DeMay: We should be kept updated and know when this is taken care of.

Mr. Goodell: I will be having a conference call with the Labor Relations Officers conference call in the next two weeks to address this problem. After that call, a telephone conference call will be held with the NCFLL

Treasurer Wheeler: I suggest that Mr. Goodell go out to the Regions to see what is going on.

Mr. Goodell: There will be changes in Labor Relations and how work gets done. I expect that there will be some accomplishments within the next six months.

President DeMay: I concur with Treasurer Wheeler that the Director of OELMR visit regional LMR meetings.

Betten: There are some things that have contributed to the problems. We have problems in getting national meetings scheduled because of Council Officers involvement in local issue. We got to be able to get things scheduled in a reasonable timeframe.

Treasurer Wheeler: There are agency restrictions that keep our stewards from getting official time and the council officers have to pick up the pieces and handle the problem

National Issues

Mr. Hugler: We have some tough weather coming in. There is a need for good faith on both sides of the table. We have to trust each other at this table.

President DeMay: Depending on the upcoming election, we are not oblivious of what can occur. It is frustrating that we have the same conversation on the same issues. Since the secretary’s memo of May 2010 on labor relations, we thought labor relations would improve when in fact it has actually gotten worse.

Resolution of Grievances

VP Darby: Mediations have been a positive in the Dallas Region on cases invoked for arbitration.

3

Mr. Goodell: We need to try to settle cases before they get to the arbitration. We need to get LRO’s to be more pro-active in resolving grievances.

VP Nolan: We have one of the most successful ADR program in the nation but we still don’t get grievances resolved until they are invoked for arbitration.

VP Darby: At step 1 meetings in the Dallas Region, some managers are told that they are there to listen to the NCFLL representative and grievant and not answer any questions.

President DeMay: When you review institutional grievances filed during the past 18 months and the responses received, you will find very few responses to these grievances from OELMR.

B1 Bargaining on Space

President DeMay: We will not agree to B1 bargaining on space since we have Article 10 to address space related issues. We believe there may be something better out there on B1 bargaining instead of on space. We need to spend time among ourselves to discuss about a B1 subject. We are willing to take a look and toss some suggestions back and forth.

Mr. Goodell: If B1 issue on space is not something we want to deal with, let’s look at some other options. We can look at a separate pilot on space for hoteling and flexi-place through traditional bargaining.

Improving Communications between DOL and the NCFLL

Mr. Kerr: We want to improve our communications. I don’t think November is going to be polite. There is talk of taking us back to the 2008 budget. DOL has gone out to put new employees in the field. From Christmas 2010 through March 2011, it is going to be a budget crunch. I want to improve communications between the DOL and NCFLL.

President DeMay: We believe that communications can be improved; otherwise, we would not be here. Possible RIF’s are a concern to us.

DOL Strategic Plan

Kerr: The DOL Strategic Plan will incorporate the agency operating plans. The agencies are working on an operating plan. Some are close to being finished. The operating plan, like the strategic plan, will become public. The plans are not set in stone. Before they are posted on the internet, they will be shared with the NCFLL. Some agencies will probably be discussing them with the NCFLL during NLMR meeting.

President DeMay: Council Liaisons may want to have discussions with agency heads to discuss their operating plans.

4

Status of transferring 11(c) Work from OSHA to OELMR

Mr. Goodell: We are not able to officially talk about the transfer of 11(c) from OSHA to OLMS as this is information is currently embargoed. OSHA has every intention to keep the 11(c) investigators in OSHA. The 11(c) issue is a matter will be addressed in the President’s Budget for 2012 and this is the reason why this can’t be addressed with the NCFLL.

Treasurer Wheeler: Even if there is an embargo on discussing this, you have a lot of 11(c) investigators whose minds are about to explode.

Mr. Hugler: We will provide the NCFLL with a legal quote on why this information can’t be discussed in any public forum.

President DeMay: This was being discussed by management at the local levels.

1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

LUNCH

2:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m

VETS

Management Attendees: John McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and Management

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner inwhich the Union may be involved. (PT) (100) (This question will be addressed by OASAM/OELMR).

Once again, the NCFLL is hearing the rumor that VETS is fast-tracking a program to develop a team of USERRA investigators to handle all USERRA work. If this is correct, what impact will it have on grade structure and staffing patterns elsewhere in VETS? Please provide a briefing on VETS plans in this area. (DW) (101)

Response: Mr. William stated that Congress passed a law requiring the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and VETS to each perform 50% of the USERA federal cases. VETS will select two investigators in each region (approximately twelve investigators) to handle the federal cases. There will be no change in the grade or job series structure for those investigators selected to perform the USERRA work.

Mr. McWilliam stated that his concern is with those who may wish to become a state director since they have to perform work in the other VETS program areas (non-USERA

5

work). He stated that we have to be careful not to lock in an investigator to performing USSERA work exclusive as this would preclude them from consideration for promotion into management. We will try rotate investigators into the USERA program every two years to perform the federal cases.

Discussion: Treasurer Wheeler asked if any discussions were held with personnel specialists to make sure that the investigators performing USERA work doesn’t run the risk of their grade levels being reduced since they would not be performing non- USERA work. He stated that the NCFLL has an interest to insure that no VETS bargaining unit employee would lose their grade level due to their performance of USERA work only. Mr. McWilliam stated that by rotating the investigators every two it will allow the opportunity for all VETS bargaining unit employees to perform both USSERA and non-USSERA work. He stated that for promotion purposes, performing non-USERA work is important and essential.

Treasurer Wheeler asked about the selection process of the two investigators in each region who will perform the USSERA investigations. Mr. William stated that the selections will be made by the regional directors and the USSERA coordinator in the National Office.

2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

OLMS

Management Attendees: Dottie Thomas, OELMR. (No management person from OLMS was in attendance)

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (68) (This question will be addressed by OASAM/OELMR).

Please discuss the status on the transfer of OSHA investigators 11(c) investigators to OLMS. (DD)(69)

Response : Due to budgetary issues related to this question, Ms. Thomas stated that Mr. Hugler will provide the NCFLL a written response on this agenda item.

Discussion: President DeMay stated that he was disappointed that the NCFLL did not receive any notification prior to arriving in Washington, DC that no one from OLMS was going to attend the meeting.

Action Item: A written response will be provided to the NCFLL by Mr. Hugler concerning the transfer of OSHA investigators 11(c) investigators to OLMS.

6

Response: On October 19, 2010, Mr. Hugler provided the following written response via email, to NCFLL President Dennis DeMay:

From: Hugler, Edward - ASAM Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:03 PMTo: DeMay, Dennis P. - OASAMCc: Goodell, Douglas - OASAM; Hugler, Edward - ASAMSubject: embargoed budget data

Denny the link below is the source of our discussion about the close hold on the whistleblower issue this morning.

You can parse the words, but the message and our practice has been that management must take prudent steps to prevent unauthorized release of confidential material prior to the release of the President’s Budget. Regrettably, some in management have not done their part. My concern is I don’t want to further that error.

At the same time the employees need to know and their rights protected. That will happen once we have final decisions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s22.pdf

3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.

BREAK3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

OASAM/General

Management Attendees: Doug Goodell, Director of OELMR; Yolanda Owens, OELMR; Donna Smith, OELMR; Kevin Hawkins, OELMR; Sheila Lyles, OELMR

Dallas OASAM LMR staff admitted in mediation two weeks ago that they advise management to say nothing at Step 1 except “I am only here to listen.” Article 15 is clear; the grievances need to be discussed. It is difficult to have a discussion when one party refuses to speak. Please discuss. (JD) (43)

Response: Mr. Goodell stated that Kelli Pettit, RA-OASAM Dallas, was not available to be on a conference call to discuss this agenda item. Mr. Goodell asked why this item is on the national agenda.

Discussion: VP Darby stated that this is not only a problem in the Dallas Region but also in other parts of the country. Ms. Owens stated that this issue was on our last agenda and we discussed with the Regional LRO’s. VP Darby stated that the information in Dallas occurred on August 31, 2010. Treasurer Wheeler stated there were similar problems found with the Atlanta OASAM as late as September 2010. Mr. Goodell stated that it is

7

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s22.pdf

not the policy of OELMR to advise managers not to have discussions during a step 1 meeting and a conference call with Regional LRO’s will be scheduled for Friday October 22, 2010 to discuss.

Dallas OASAM LR staff admitted in mediation last week that they advise management to refuse official time for a steward (even the closest one) who needs to travel to a remote site in order to review records or speak to grievance or witness. They claim the contract only requires official time for travel to and from Step 1 and Step 2 meetings. Please discuss. (JD) (44)

During the February 23, 2010 OASAM National LMR Meeting, agenda item #61 was raised concerning a FLRA Ruling (USDA Forest Service, Human Capital Management and NFFE, IAMAW, 64 FLRA No. 31 (FLRA 2009) that Human Resource Specialists be included in the bargaining unit. At the time of the NLMR, OASAM stated that they were reviewing the decisions and positions that may be impacted within DOL.

Please provide an update and discuss the status of DOL Human Resource Specialists being included into the bargaining unit. (JD) (45)

Response: We have asked the agency’s to review their Human Resources Specialist and provide their response to us by November. We will confirm if we can provide the list to the NCFLL by November with the names of those agency Human Resources Specialists who are in and out of the bargaining unit.

Discussion: VP Darby asked that an explanation be provided for anyone who is shown as “out of the bargaining unit. OELMR agreed.

Action Item: OELMR to provide a list of DOL Human Resources Specialist who are being included in the bargaining unit as a result of the FLRA Ruling (USDA Forest Service, Human Capital Management and NFFE, IAMAW, 64 FLRA No. 31 (FLRA 2009) that Human Resource Specialists are to be included in the bargaining unit. For any Human Resource Specialist excluded, the NCFLL will be provided with an explanation.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 12/15/10 as follows: “HRC is still determining how to implement this FLRA decision and once that determination is made, OELMR will share that determination and course of action, if applicable, with the NCFLL”.

Has any policy guidance been issued from the NO to the OASAM Regions on this matter? (NN)

Response: Not yet but guidance will be provided.

Does the Department still maintain a list of union stewards on Labor Net? If so, where? (DL) (47)

8

Response: Mr. Goodell stated that he was not aware of a list on Labor Net for stewards but stated that this would be easy to do and we can do it.

Discussion: Treasurer Wheeler stated that the list of stewards should be on Region Net; however, the lists are not kept updated. Mr. Goodell stated that OELMR will control the steward’s lists from the National Office and discuss it with the Labor Relations Officer during our conference call with them on Friday October 22, 2010.

4:15 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.

OWCP

Management Attendees: Antonio Rios, Supervisory, OWCP; Cecily Rayburn, Deputy Director, OWCP; Christy Long, Deputy Director, Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation; Ken Reinshuttle, Human Resources Specialist


Suggestion: to upgrade our ifec system to initiate prompts for CE case management actions. For example, when a case is accepted and the claimant remains TTD, the acceptance letter, DM record, QAP, and nurse referral should auto generate. When the claimant is placed on the PR the 1049 letter should be auto generated. This method may reduce the time involved when managing the claims. (BT) (85)

Response: Thank you for that suggestion. We will submit it to our iFECS team for consideration.

The DOs in Boston and NY continue to be denied any redecorating – paint and carpet. Please explain the rationale for keeping these offices in substandard condition. (BT) (86)

Response: An agency’s budget request may contain sums of money that can eventually be obligated for renovations, but when the agency receives its final budget, those renovations cannot always be pursued to the extent desired. It is noted, though, that the Boston office recently had all of its walls repainted. And while the carpet is not new, it does not present any safety or health hazards.

The same applies for the carpets in New York. And though the entire New York office has not been repainted, certain walls have been repainted and the office has paid for touch-ups as needed. However; OWCP will look further research this matter as to any safety and health issues.

9

Discussion: Although the carpet may not be unsafe, VP Nolan stated that it does raise a health concern. The carpet is disgusting to view. EV Weyrauch noted a similar problem with the carpet in the Virginia Longshore Office.

Action Item: OWCP and OELMR will provide the NCFLL with a follow-up response concerning installation of new carpet in the Boston and New York OWCP District Offices.

Response . Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Dorothy Thomas on 11/02/10, which stated: “OWCP have contacted each of the offices as to the potential costs and they are providing estimates. OWCP can not do the work until OWCP have a full year’s appropriation. Once OWCP have a full year appropriation OWCP will make a determination.”

Recently, the RICWEL (long time second opinion contractor) contract expired. A new contractor, QTC Medical Services from Diamond Bar, CA was awarded the contract to begin 10/1/10. Please provide a presentation/discussion regarding this change as it relates to the QTC parent company, cost savings, improved service, QTC’s track record, length of contract, and impact on BUEs. (BT) (87)

Response: QTC has 29 years of experience in the area of arranging medical examinations and has delivered over 97,000 second opinion examinations under DOL contracts. Prior to the Chicago/Cleveland award, QTC managed contracts in seven (7) different OWCP District Offices in which they have met or exceeded contract requirements. Service level agreements are outlined in the contract that identifies specific performance and delivery expectations for scheduling the second opinion examination once a referral is received all the way through providing OWCP a medical report. All contracts have the same service level agreements and expectations.

The transition in contracts has been seamless. On October 1, 2010, RICWEL ceased scheduling second opinion examinations and QTC began scheduling. There was no disruption to the claimants in the Chicago/Cleveland OWCP District Offices. In addition, there is no impact on bargaining unit employees (BUE) as the process of submitting a referral to QTC is completed in the same manner in which referrals were submitted to RICWEL. Referrals may be submitted via fax, telephone, or web. However, QTC offers a simplified process that provides access to their secure user interface/network and allows for tracking referrals, uploading and downloading reports and documents while ensuring data security and protection that has been approved by DFEC DITMS.

Discussion: VP Tucker asked for a breakdown of second opinion vendors by District Office. OWCP agreed to provide the information to the NCFLL.

Action Item: OWCP will provide the NCFLL with a breakdown of second opinion vendors by District Office.

10

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Dorothy Thomas with OELMR on 10/20/10 as follows:

Per your request, below please find the written response and the breakdown of second opinion vendors by District Office as requested during the quarterly session with OWCP yesterday as an action item for #87.

Boston - QTC Medical Services

New York - MCN

Philadelphia - QTC Medical Services

Jacksonville - QTC Medical Services

Chicago - QTC Medical Services

Cleveland - QTC Medical Services

Kansas City - QTC Medical Services

Denver - QTC Medical Services

San Francisco - QTC Medical Services

Seattle - MES

Dallas - QTC Medical Services

National Operations - MCN

In DFEC, telephone calls left on the voice mail system after the employee leaves for the day are tracked from the moment (day) they come in. That creates a no-win situation for the CE. By the time he/she arrives to work the next day, the call is already one day old before it is possible to return it. The practice is causing CEs to fail the “same day” standard for returning calls even though they are really meeting or exceeding the standard. Employees who arrive late and stay late have an advantage. There is an obvious flaw in the system. Please discuss this inequity and inaccurate rating practice. What steps are being considered to correct this? (BT) (88)

Response: Our Operational Plan calls for 73% of the calls to be answered on the same day they are received, and 95% to be answered within 2 days or less. We do not have prototype standards across the nation, but we do expect our regions to meet the national operation plan goals. When considering the standards in different offices, some call for 92-96% of calls to be returned by close of business the next work day, while others may split the standard into “same day” and “next day” standards, requiring 35-40% of calls to

11

be answered on the date received, and 94-97% within 2 work days. The requirement for employees to answer 35-40% of their calls on the date received is not unreasonable, even if the employee leaves as early as 3:00pm.

Discussion: VP Tucker stated that BUES are breaking their necks to return these calls He suggested that communication from the Nation Office to BUES would be beneficial. Mr. Rios stated that calls are managed by office business hours. President DeMay and EVP Weyrauch expressed unfairness for someone who works from 6:30 am to 3 pm and the phone bank is off at 4:30 pm. OWCP management needs to take a step back in order to discuss this standard. VP Tucker stated the application of the standard is a problem.

Please provide an update on the IVR progress. (BT) (89)

Response: Since our last report in June, all of the hardware and COTS software has been purchased, and the voice over IP (VOIP) telephones has been ordered. Additionally, customized software development is currently underway to create iFECS CA-110 screen pops that will appear when a call is received. These screen pops will auto-populate the information on a CA-110 by the time the call is transferred to the CEs work station.

Our deployment schedule has our pilot office, Philadelphia, receiving its IVR system in January. We estimate that the pilot will take 1 month and if there are no problems with the system, we will begin installing VOIP telephones and deploying the software to the other offices in 2-3 week intervals.

Discussion: VP Tucker asked if training will be provided. Mr. Rios stated yes. He stated that the method of training (on-line training vs. train the trainer) is being reviewed. VP Tucker asked if IVR will be used in Energy. Mr. Rios stated that it will only be used for FECA.

Please discuss progress towards flexi-place for Claims Examiners. (BT) (90)

Response: In September 2010, we enhanced iFECS to allow for remote bronzing and we are making progress to deploy the IVR system, per the schedule described in the previous question. Once these technological impediments are fully resolved, we will be in a position to expand flexi place for CEs.

Claims work for OWCP-FECA has experienced a dramatic rise in incoming claims, phone calls and other associated work product due to “NRP” the United States Postal Service has begun in various parts of the country. Please provide the union with an update regarding what additional resources or procedures that have been implemented to alleviate the impact on bargaining unit employees to meet their current performance standards. (DL) (91)

Response: The Postal Service’s National Reassessment Process (NRP) has created an imbalance of work within our regions and we are therefore considering an FTE allocation formula that will ameliorate these impacts. Although the NRP has added work to our

12

regions, there has also been a decrease in the total number of new claims created within the program in the last several years. Both the general decrease in workload and the increase created by the NRP are being considered as part of the FY 2011 planning process. FTE will be allocated based on the changing workload distributions among the district offices.

Discussion: VP Tucker noted that this hits the QCM Units hard.

How is the requirement the OWCP-FECA employees use of their own personal computers consistent with the new DLMS policy regarding single computer use for Department of Labor employees? When is the next round of computer replacement going to take place in OWCP-FECA and will OWCP-FECA be purchasing desk top or lap top systems? (DL) (92)

Response: Most Claims Examiners (CEs) are assigned only one computer by DOL., and no FECA employee is required to use their own personal computers. The Computer Lifecycle Management Practices stated in the DLMS refer to “single computer use,” but that is for DOL employees that currently have two computers due to the portability requirements of their particular positions. For DOL employees who are required to be on the road, ordinarily two computers are purchased – one desktop and one laptop. This is known as the traditional dual-desktop-laptop platform. The DLMS policy of changing to laptops over desktops pertains only to those employees who have 2 computers as part of their job requirements. There are no portability requirements associated with the CE position, which is why CEs have only one DOL computer.

The next PC deployment for DFEC staff is scheduled to take place within 2-3 months, and those computers have already been purchased as desktops.

Discussion: President DeMay stated that it is disturbing that OWCP is purchasing desktops since it will inhibit our folks to work flexi-place. Mr. Rios stated that this will not prevent CE’s from using their personal computers from home.

Note: The NCFLL caucused at this point. When the meeting resumed, President DeMay stated that management will receive a response from the NCFLL on this matter.

There is an ongoing email concerning the roll out of the new COP process. It is addressed to COP nurses. Nat Thomas is the NO contact for the training. He is instructing the nurses that they have print ability from imaging. The learning module (nurses did not have this) stated this would be a view only function. Seems inconsistent that the contractors are able to print hardcopies but DOL employees working remotely cannot. Please discuss. (BT) (93)

Response: Access and use of PII is based on the requirements of a specific position or role, not on whether the employee is a government employee or contractor. The nature of the nurse contract and the requirements of their positions often necessitate travel to a physician’s office or an injured worker’s employer with medical documents. Conversely,

13

the role of a CE does not require the transport of any such documents and would therefore be a direct violation of PII regulations. Additionally, the contracts signed by the nurses require them to certify proper safeguarding and destruction of PII, and clearly state that any release of PII to unauthorized parties may constitute a violation of law.

Discussion: VP Tucker stated that the issue is with the printer capability of DOL employees when they are working remotely.

In 2002 the Cleveland FEC Office had 36 CEs and 11 Senior CEs. 36+11 = 47 BU claims staff. In 2010 there are 29 CEs and 8 seniors. 29+8 = 37BU claims staff. Plus the special claims unit (8 CEs and 2 seniors). 8+2=10. This 2010 total of 47 is the same as in 2002, but there was the addition of the special claims unit work. The office is doing more work per CE. Please discuss. (BT) (94)

Response: Since 2002, the Cleveland Office has experienced a 12% decrease in new FECA cases created. The addition of the Special Claims Unit has led to an increase in overall claims to that office, when you add War Hazard Claims and Special Jurisdiction Cases. But even after adding all of the Special Claims to the FECA claims, the Cleveland office still experienced a 1.6% reduction in overall cases created since 2002. Consequently, the ratio of claims per BUE is slightly lower than it was in 2002.

Please discuss DOL efforts to retain the ENERGY employees who are reaching the end of their terms. (BT) (95)

Response: Term appointments are generally filled using competitive examining procedures through the agency’s delegated examining authority. Term appointments are considered distinct and separate employment opportunities and, therefore, individuals currently serving under a term appointment are not prohibited from competing and serving under subsequent term appoints. However, the individual cannot serve under a term appointment in which the organizational unit/office and nature of the work are identical to a term position previously held, unless the individual left the previous appointment prior to serving the four year amount of time.

In other words you cannot serve on another term appointment doing the exact same duties, in the exact same office as you have previously for a time period of four years. There is nothing that precludes an applicant for applying for other term appointments in other offices doing different type of work.

As the DEEOIC district offices backfill behind permanent staff, vacancy announcements are posted for both MS and DEU. Term employees are encouraged to apply for any permanent positions that become available.

Management has stated the congressional mandated progress towards flexplace is hindered by the fact of ENERGY’s reliance upon paper cases. Technology for imaging cases is old and well proven. What, if any, progress is there towards using this or other methods to both secure PPI and to add flexibility to ENERGY practices? (BT) (96)

14

Response: DEEOIC is currently designing and building a modernized case management system (Energy Compensation System – ECS) to unify its separate applications and to establish a framework for the future. This new framework will support and enable the next-generation addition of paperless technology similar to that deployed in DFEC. The new system is scheduled for deployment in 2011. Once the system itself is deployed, the next phase will be to begin developing a process for imaging.

Recently, ENERGY has begun providing notice to the union of changes in the Procedure Manual (PM). That is an improvement, thank you. However, BUEs have pointed out that inconsistencies in the PM remain unaddressed. Please discuss the concept of “grass roots” involvement in the rewriting of the PM. (BT) (97)

Response: Combining the Part B and Part E Procedure Manuals into one comprehensive Unified Procedure Manual was a monumental and complicated task. During the initial drafting and publishing phases of the Unified Procedure Manual, draft chapters were shared with our District Offices and the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) employees, and comments were solicited and evaluated for incorporation. In addition, several of our District Office and FAB field employees worked to help write some key chapters. We realize that inconsistencies remain with the deployment of such a large and complicated document that was published in phases. Accordingly, DEEOIC has assembled a team of policy analysts to obtain input from the District Offices and FAB relative to the inconsistencies they have found and monthly holds policy teleconference calls where inconsistencies are discussed and addressed. Through this process we continue to publish new and improved chapters that will further solidify procedural guidance and eliminate inconsistencies as best as possible. We feel that this process, involving all field offices and empowering BUE policy analysts to evaluate comments and make recommendations to management, is indeed implementing a “grass roots” approach to the improvement of the Unified Procedure Manual.

Discussion: VP Tucker asked who in the field part of the comment group were. Management stated that it was FAB employees. VP Tucker asked for a list of the comment group, broken down by BUEs and office location, who proposed the changes to the Procedure Manual. OWCP agreed to provide the information requested.

Action Item : OWCP to provide the NCFLL with a list of the comment group (breakdown of Bargaining Unit Employees and non-bargaining unit employees by location) who review proposed changes to the Procedure Manual.

Response : Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Dorothy Thomas with OELMR on10/20/10 as follows:

Per your request, attached is a list of district staff that participated and/or submitted comments on the unified Procedure Manual (PM) revisions and an email from the Jacksonville District Director, James Bibeault, requesting his staff take a look and provide feedback on the revisions. In addition to the PM, every district office sent a

15

representative to assist our Policy Branch in creating the wage-loss calculator and in rewriting the wage-loss and impairment chapters for the PM. The employees’ work largely reflects the finished product for both of those key chapters.

DEEOIC BUE Members Working on Unified Procedure Manual Revision

National Office:

Karoline Anders Rodney AlstonTina Bynum Scott CordellAngela Eaddy David EvansSarah Friedman Mojdeh HarvesfVictoria Lewis Joshua MurphyDionne Perry Hang Tung

Cleveland: Kelly Allen Susan CourtneyDon Davis Merrie FrostCarrie Humphreys Lance LanierSharon Lave Cheryl MartinAlane Mastandrea Nicole MetcalfChris Patterson David ReinhartMary Sullivan Valerie WhittakerAmanda Wine

Denver:

John Atkinson Paula HeidelEddie Garcia

Jacksonville: All Jacksonville staff was asked to submit comments (see attached email).

Kathy Eberhart Tim HenthornJanie Hogan Katina JohnsonMarlita Lotuaco Dianne MillerPatty Padgett Shirley StoneBrent Unger Sidne ValdiviesoDiane Vorse Dennis WattsAngela Wellborn Kim WillsonJenifer Yaneris

* Kimberly Wadley of Jacksonville FAB drafted the initial versions of both FAB chapters and assisted in finalizing both chapters after National Office management review.

16

Seattle: Erica Marcoux Jayne MoynihanPage Rebelo Jim GrinsteadLaura Braidman Erica BurkhartRoger David David DeanHarold Degenhart Randy DempsterAndrea DeVry Megan EldridgeCharles Elsen Frances HornbackBertha Jones Jennifer MadridMaureen Maher Joseph MalimbanThomas Mellado Kelly MockliGregory Nelson Patrick Omatsu,Angelino Patubo Daniel StaussDavid Stebing Karen WallerSadie Woolsy Gay JohnsonKelly Kotada Tom Melancon

Please discuss the concept of providing a “best estimate” of the potential number of cases involved in any additions to coverage (such as the recent SLAPS). (BT) (98)

Response: For any given new Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) class DEEOIC evaluates the timeframe definition (when the class is operative at the site) against a list of known claimants in our Energy Case Management System (ECMS) database to determine how many potential individuals are affected. The SEC class is also further defined by a certain set of specified cancers set out by statute and regulation. DEEOIC cross-references the list of known claimants to determine whether or not they have claimed one of the specified cancers. The generated list of potentially affected claimants is then forwarded to the jurisdictional district office prior to the issuance of a bulletin so the claims can be screened to see if they meet the SEC criteria. In addition, a list of potentially affected claimants is generated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and that list is also evaluated against the ECMS data and a pull list of potentially affected claimants is generated based upon that data. This was true in the recent Mound SEC when we had to review the claims of certain individuals who may have been monitored for tritium exposure (a part of the SEC definition issued by NIOSH). Thus, the potential number of cases involved in any given SEC is identified by a systematic method that far exceeds the accuracy yielded by a “best estimate” guess.

Please discuss progress towards flexplace for Claims Examiners. (BT) (99)

Response: We continue to look for ways to include and allow Claims Examiners to participate in flexiplace. As stated above, DEEOIC is building a modernized case management system which we believe will support and allow for a paperless technology. The new system is scheduled for deployment in 2011 and the next phase will be to work toward imaging capabilities.

17


October 19 -21, 2010

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

OSHA

Management Attendees: Doug Goodell, Director of OELMR; Cecimil Maldonado, Human Resources Specialist; Joseph Blake, Human Resources Specialist; Cheryle Greenaugh, Director, IT; Bob Pitulej - Deputy Director, Administrative Programs; Patrick Kapust - Deputy Director, Enforcement Programs; Lee Anne Jillings - Deputy Director, Cooperative and State Programs


Response: Prior to the Executive Order, Mr. Blake stated that it has been the policy of OSHA to regularly share information with the NCFLL, such as draft directives and pilots, when they are in the developmental phase. He stated that OSHA plans to continue keep these processes going forward.

Provide an explanation and legal cite as to why when an Agency is conducting an investigation of a Sexual Harassment complaint, bargaining unit employees can be interviewed, but not permitted to have a union representative present, but can be reprimanded if they do not participate. (JW) (71)

Background. A manager observed an incident in an OSHA office between a manager and female bargaining unit member, filed a complaint with the regional office, an investigation was immediately started, and bargaining unit employees were interviewed by a regional manager, who happened to be an attorney, were denied union representation, but were told as was the union, that any refusal to provide information in an interview could lead to disciplinary action.

Response: Mr. Goodell stated that this is not the policy of the agency. We follow the sexual harassment policy established by the Department in these types of matters. A copy of the policy was sent to EVP Weyrauch by Catherine Fortune with EEO.

Discussion: Mr. Goodell asked EVP Weyrauch the OSHA Office involved with the incident. EVP Weyrauch stated that it is Pittsburg Office. Ms. Maldonado stated that we

18

didn’t know which office was involved but now that we know, we will investigate this matter and provide a response to the NCFLL. Mr. Goodell stated that witnesses are generally not entitled to a union representative during these types of investigations since they are not the subject of the investigation; however, we have generally allowed it. EVP Weyrauch noted that in this particular investigation, management was telling our BUES that they would be subject to disciplinary action if they didn’t cooperate.

Action Item: OSHA to investigate the circumstances surrounding a manager in an OSHA Office in the Philadelphia Region denying BUES union representation and told that if they refused to provided information in an interview could lead to disciplinary action. OSHA to provide the NCFLL with the results of their investigation. Additionally, OSHA to provide the NCFLL with a citation from DLMS which requires a DOL employee to cooperate during an investigation

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 12/13/10. According to the email: “The following is taken from DLMS 8 Chapter 712 A. 2, and is provided in response to OSHA agenda Item number 71 submitted for discussion by Mr. Weyrauch.”

710 Authority and Responsibilities

711 Authority. The policy and procedures provided in this chapter are authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, P.L. 95-452.

712 Responsibilities

A. All DOL employees are responsible for: 2 Fully cooperating with the OIG and other authorized personnel

(from DOL or other Federal agencies) during the course of an investigation. Employees are obligated to give information to the OIG or to other authorized representatives of the Department when called upon if the inquiry relates to official DOL matters and the information is obtained in the course of employment or as a result of relationships incident to such employment. This includes the furnishing of a signed, sworn statement. Employees are also obligated to afford access to records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, and other materials in their possession when a request for such materials is made in the course of an investigation under this chapter. Failure to respond to requests for information or for access to written materials, or a failure to otherwise cooperate may result in disciplinary penalties. (Nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon an employee's right to invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution with respect to self-incrimination.)

http://www.labornet.dol.gov/workplaceresources/policies/DLMS/DLMS08/dlms8-0700.doc

19

http://www.labornet.dol.gov/workplaceresources/policies/DLMS/DLMS08/dlms8-0700.doc

Discuss the Union’s pre-decisional involvement as the agency considers solutions to the deficiencies in the 11c program identified in the recent GAO audit. We have heard rumors of potential transfer of this work to other agencies in DOL. (PT) (72)

Response: OSHA has not provided a response to GAO on their audit. No decision has been made by OSHA on the transfer of the 11c program to other agencies within DOL. OSHA Regional Administrators were advised last week that is business as usual.

Please provide an update on the distribution of laptops to the field. (NN) (73)

Response: We had to purchase 100 laptops for new employees hired under ARRA. These laptops are the only ones that have been distributed to the field. This is separate from the procurement process we were in for new computers nationwide. We were not able to get procurement approval before the end of FY 2010. Due to current continuing resolution,, procurement is on hold. Once approval is received, purchases will be made and rolled out to the regions within three months.

Discussion: VP Darby emphasized the importance to get these new laptops to OSHA BUES in Region VI who is in great need of them in order to perform PSM reviews.

Please provide an update on the OSHA Information System. (NN) (74)

Response: Provided the Continuing Resolution doesn’t hold us back, we have tentative dates set for implementation in the February/March 2011 timeframe as follows: February 14th to one region (possibly New York); February 28th two regions (possibly Denver and Chicago). Web Training will be provided around the first week of January 2011 and a two minute video will be sent out to all staff.

The new core financial system does not allow the office managers to track the expenses against their budget. The OMA are worried that the monies will run out prior to the end of the fiscal year. Not knowing how much money is in the “tank” is an issue that needs to be resolved. (ME) (75)

Response: We are not having success in the National Office on this subject as well. We are still trying to clean-up the problems from FY 2010 but this is being handled by the Department. The new codes for FY 11 are in the system and monies are available to cover costs. We do believe that it will be better going forward.

20

What is the status of VPP for FY11? (NN) (76)

Response: The Secretary still supports VPP for FY 11. We are still proceeding with the program without the use of federal funding. We are looking at alternative funding sources, such as stakeholders. What is the status of Alliances and Partnerships for FY11? (NN) (77)

Response: In August 2009, a review was conducted of the Alliances and Partnership Program. Based on the review, the Assistant Secretary for OSHA issued new guidelines to focus on the workers audience. Greater emphasis was placed on National and Regional involvement in the program.

Discussion: VP England noted that Employers are telling OSHA Staff that this is a form of taxation by ramping up the fines. He noted that when OSHA has a strained relationship with the business community, staff has to jump a lot of hoops that will affect the quality of our investigations. Management stated that the concern will be mentioned to the front office and we will try to incorporate this into our outreach efforts.

Action Item: OSHA will provide the NCFLL with a copy of OSHA’s Alliances and Partnership Program.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 12/14/10. The email contained a Memorandum, dated July 8, 2010 from David Michaels, Assistant Secretary for OSHA, on the Revised Alliance Program Participation Criteria.

Note: Recording Secretary Daryl Laurie will email local presidents with a copy of the July 8, 2010 Memorandum from Assistant Secretary Michaels.

What limits have been put on QSIs in the Regions for FY10? (NN) (78)

Response: We have not changed the process. The size and scope of the region is the determining factor.

Discussion: President DeMay asked for the number of QSI’s distributed by Region for FY 2009 and FY 2010. Management stated that they will need to obtain the information and provide it to the NCFLL.

Action Item: OSHA to provide the NCFLL with the number of QSI’s distributed by region for bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees. The FY 2009 numbers will be provided as soon as possible and the FY 2010 will be provided in January 2011.

21

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Cecimil Maldonado, Employee and Labor Relations Officer with OSHA, on 12/07/10.

How many instant good job awards were given to bargaining unit employees in the field in FY10? (NN) (79)

Response: A handout was provided by OSHA with a breakdown of instant jobs by Regions.

Note: According to the handouts, the monetary awards ranged from $100 to $300 per person. The following is a breakdown of instant good job awards by regions:

Region Number of Instant Good Job Awards Issue

1 22 133 64 155 366 227 168 39 8

SCTECMD 11STDGUID 5

SLTC PHYSI 1“Totals” 138

Discuss the agency involvement with the DOL Call Center. What volume of calls and/or email do they handle and what is our evaluation of their service? Is there consideration

OSHA - QSI for FY 2009 by Regions

Regions

Bargaining Unit

Non Bargain Total

Atlanta 6 1 7Bos/NY 4 2 6Chi/KC 9 3 12Dal/Den 4 3 7Phil 2 2 4SF/Sea 2 2 4Total 27 13 40

22

for returning this work to within the DOL? Is there a deadline for the renewal of the contract or for the process of re-bidding? (PT) (80)

Response: We are not aware of any involvement by OSHA with the call center.

Discussion: VP Tracy shared the cover page of the Call Center Contract with OSHA management. Management stated that if an OSHA related call comes into the call center, it is referred to the appropriate OSHA Office. The Call Center would not address any OSHA related problems. VP Tracy asked if OSHA pays any monies to finance the call center. OSHA management is unaware of any monies paid. It may be a Department cost. VP Tracy asked the number of referrals OSHA receives from the call center but OSHA management didn’t have immediate information on this but did agree to obtain the information and provide it to the NCFLL

Action Item: OSHA to review their records and provide the NCFLL with the number of calls that are referred by the Call Center.

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 12/06/10. According to the information provided: “For FY2009, our contractor handled 33,855 hotline calls. This number does not represent the total number of calls that came in to the 1-800-321-OSHA number and transferred to another directorate or office. The monthly reports on hotline calls and e-correspondences may be found on OSHA’s Intranet at http://intranet.osha.gov/compliance/dcp-reports.html.”

Please discuss any plans by OSHA in upgrading the Administrative staff/safety Tech to a GS-09. If there are no plans, the NCFLL would like to have further discussions with OSHA management on this subject matter. (NN) or (ME) (81)

Response: There are no plans to upgrade the Administrative staff/safety Techs to a GS-09. Discussion: EVP Weyrauch stated that this was discussed at the Philadelphia Regional LMR meetings and the OSHA Regional Administrator stated that there were discussions occurring at the National level about upgrading these positions. EVP Weyrauch stated that these positions, in some regions, were being advertised at a GS-9. OSHA management stated that they were unaware of these positions being advertised at a GS-09 but they will follow-up and provide the NCFLL with a response.

Action Item: OSHA will follow-up and notify the NCFLL if there are GS-9 Adm. Staff/Safety Tech announcements being made in any of the regions.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 12/15/10. According to the email: “At this time, there are not any GS-9 Admin. Staff/Safety Tech announcements being made in the regions.”

23

http://intranet.osha.gov/compliance/dcp-reports.html

http://intranet.osha.gov/compliance/dcp-reports.html

The general opinion in the field is that the new OSHA computers are less reliable than the old ones. Please discuss the process used to make this change. Can BUEs opt for continuing to use the older computer? (BT) (82)

Response : Once new laptops have been distributed, BUES can’t opt to keep older computers. We have experienced problems with new computers that were purchased through existing funds. We are planning to replace these machines.

Discussion: VP Nolan suggested that the new computers be piloted in a few regions before being rolled out to everyone. OSHA management stated that they are looking at having pilots in Region 3 and 8 because they have a regional and Area Office in close proximity.

Is there a new prototype position description for Labor Liaison in the Regions? (NN) (83)

Response: We drafted a labor liaison prototype position description and sent them out to field a few years ago. Depending on the Region, if there are BUES spending 100% of their time in labor liaison work, they use labor liaison position description; if they spend less than !00% of their time in labor liaison work,, they incorporate information from the labor liaisons work within their current Position Description of the employee as collateral duty.

Discussion: VP Nolan noted that some BUES have their PD’s as collateral duty for labor liaison work but spent 100% of time performing labor liaison work.

10:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.

ETA

Management Attendees: Daphne Jefferson, Administrator for the Office of Financial Administration and Management (OFAM); Dina Rambert, HR Director

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (20) (This question will be addressed by OASAM/OELMR). The position of Workforce Development Specialist (WDS) has a career ladder to GS-12 in all regions except Dallas (where it is a GS-11). Why does Dallas do this? Please discuss. (JD) (21)

Response: Ms. Rambert stated that two of the six regions have, in the past, opened positions allowing for advancement to a GS-12 grade level without further competition in those instances where the employee has been assigned higher graded work and has demonstrated that he/she can perform at the next higher level. She stated that the Dallas Region has recently requested and was given approval to fill three GS-12 positions. They

24

filled 2 Workforce Development Specialist positions at the GS-12 grade level and 1 GS-12 Unemployment Insurance Specialist. Four staff members applied for the 3 positions – 3 of the 4 staff members were selected.

Discussion: VP Darby stated that the Workforce Development Specialists should have a career ladder to the GS-12 level. He stated that the NCFLL wants back pay for these employees impacted and expects a response back from management by November 1, 2010. He stated that f no response is received by that date, a back pay grievance will be filed and the matter will be turned over to AFGE. Ms Rambert stated that ETA agrees to research the matter and provide a response to the NCFLL by November 1, 2010.

Action Item: ETA to review and provide the NCFLL a response on career ladder promotion issue impacting Wage Development Specialists (WDS) in the Dallas Region and the reason(s) they were not career ladder promotions in the past like they were in the rest of the country.

Response: On 10/27/10, the NCFLL received an email from Dorothy Thomas in OELMR stating that ETA management is in the process of reviewing the practice in all of the six regions and has requested an extension until November 12, 2010 for a response. ETA’s primary interest is to get the matter resolved. On 10/27/10, President DeMay responded, via email to Ms. Thomas, stating that the NCFLL will grant the requested extension provided the Department grants an extension of an equal amount of time for the NCFLL to file a grievance on this matter. .Ms. Thomas responded on 10/28/10 agreeing to the extension that the NCFLL would have to file a grievance on this matter

On 11/12/10, Ms. Thomas forwarded an email to the NCFLL from Ms. Rambert detailing the response from ETA concerning this agenda item.

Appendix E to DPR 335 indeed reflects a GS-12 target grade level for the ETA GS-142 –Workforce Development Specialist career ladder, but only those positions that serve as Field Representatives for Job Training Programs, United States Employment Service and Work Incentive Program, and Job Corps Project Managers. All other Workforce Development Specialist, GS-142 positions have a career ladder target grade of GS-11. Currently there are no GS-11’s on a GS-142 series position description in the Dallas region. There are two GS-11 employees on the 301 series; one GS-11 under the 510 series; and two GS-11’s under the 560 series. All others on 142 series are at the GS-13 grade level and above and three under the 301 series that were recently promoted to the GS-12 grade level.

Further, when an agency wants to modify an approved career ladder, the Office of Human Resources must submit a request to the Human Resources Center, OASAM, which includes a workload study and certifications by management that sufficient work exists to justify establishing the journeyman level for the occupation at the targeted grade. In response to your concern regarding the Dallas region, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Workforce Development Specialist, GS-11’s are currently working at a higher grade level. Therefore, in

25

order for there to be a back pay issue, it has to be determined that an employee is being assigned and is performing work at the higher grade level for some time.

In fact, it has been brought to my attention that the NCFLL did file a grievance on behalf of a Dallas region employee and alleged that this employee was working at a higher grade level and was owed back pay. The case went to arbitration and management prevailed. Therefore, management is constantly reminded of their obligations and responsibilities to assign work within the grade level of the incumbent

Several GS-11 and -12 employees in ETA Dallas believe their career paths are being “blocked” by GS-12 and -13 employees who either transfer into the region or who are ARRA employees later converted to permanent employees. They have been in Dallas for many years and are frustrated. What can management do to promote them? Please discuss. (JD) (22)

Response: ‘ The Regional Administrator brought in persons who they thought are best qualified for the position. ARRA hires who came on as temps would have to compete for permanent positions._______________________________________________________________________

What provisions are being taken to lessen the impact on the ETA ARRA grant work that will be transitioned back to existing BUE’s as the temp and term employees are separated at the end of FY 2010? (DL) (23)

Response: We have put a support contract in place with funds obligated prior to the end of FY 2010. The contract is for one year and provides for two contractors in each region to assist in the transition. Federal project officers are doing desk reviews and looking at which grantees are at risk. We will use the GEM (Grant Electronic Management) system to help with grantees at risk.

Discuss the agency involvement with the DOL Call Center. What volume of calls and/or email do they handle and what is our evaluation of their service? Is there consideration for returning this work to within the DOL? Is there a deadline for the renewal of the contract or for the process of re-bidding? (PT) (24)

Response: Ms Jefferson stated that the Call Center has handled 203,000 ETA related telephone calls. The Call Center doesn’t handle any email inquiries. A Customer Satisfaction Survey was conducted of the Call Center. The survey revealed that 98% of survey callers received the information they were seeking. Management stated that they will provide the NCFLL with a copy of the Call Center Customer Satisfaction Survey Results.

The work performed by the Call Center was never performed within DOL. This was an effort by the Secretary of Labor to proactively have people to call-in. There are scripts written by ETA in a decision tree format. It is heavily utilized in unemployment

26

insurance. The Call Center is available in all time zones except Hawaii. The Call Center is staffed English and Spanish speaking representatives. Also, there are 140 additional languages available, possibly through software.

The Call Center Contract was re-bid and awarded to CSC Data Track effective Oct. 1, 2010. The contract operates on a fiscal year basis with four option years. ETA pays $1.7 million per year on the contract, which is managed through the Office of Public Affairs. The monies are paid by ETA to OPA to fund their portion of the contract.

Action Item: ETA to provide the NCFLL with a copy of the Call Center Customer Satisfaction Survey Results.

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Dorothy Thomas on 12/01/10. According to her email, Ms. Thomas provided the following: “Below please find ETA Call Center Customer Satisfaction Survey Results.

1. Linguistic Services (140 languages)…When a caller calls in that needs additional linguistic services, the call-center service rep brings in a third party on the line who speaks the correct language and a three-way call continues between the call-center representative, client and translator from the contracted linguistics service provider (or translator). If the call-center rep cannot identify the client’s language, the linguistics service provider is brought on the line to help identify the language and move forward from there. There is always a call-center rep on the line because they have the scripts and the information about our services.

2. Customer Service Survey…Here are the breakouts from the survey regarding the all/some information offered. Please note that this was the customer satisfaction survey for the US Dept. of Labor National Contact Center and included customers from ALL of the DOL lines including ETA, JC, MSHA, ODEP, OPA, OSHA, SB, and WHD.

a. Question #1 - Did you receive the information or referral you needed on this call?

i. ALL – 82%ii. SOMEWHAT – 16%

iii. NONE – 2%b. Question #2 – How would you rate the representative you spoke with in

terms of being pleasant and courteous? i. VERY – 95%

ii. SOMEWHAT – 4%iii. NOT AT ALL – 1%

c. Question #3 – How would you rate the person you spoke with in terms of being knowledgeable and helpful?

i. VERY – 87%ii. SOMEWHAT – 12%

iii. NOT AT ALL – 1%

27

d. Question #4 – How satisfied are you with how your call was handled? i. VERY – 86%

ii. SOMEWHAT – 12%iii. NOT AT ALL – 2%

2. Wait times… As for the average wait, during GFY '10 the average ETA caller waited for only 17 seconds before being answered by a Customer Service Representative (CSR). However, if we removed just one day (1/6/10) when the ETA Toll-Free Number got three times its normal volume, the average wait for the year would have been 14 seconds.

ETA/Job Corps.

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (25) (This question will be addressed by OASAM/OELMR). With the recent migration of the procurement work back to Job Corps from OASAM, new duties were assigned to various BUE. When will the position descriptions and any subsequent audit of BUE positions be completed? Are there any possibilities to increase these employee’s grade levels? (DL) (26)

Response: Ms. Rambert stated that the transfer of Job Corps employees from OASAM back to ETA is effective October 24, 2010. She stated that all employees will be moved in tact with no change in working conditions. There are no plans to increase their grade levels.

Discussion: VP Tracy asked for the number of field employees impacted by this move and any space related concerns. Rambert stated that ETA will provide the NCFLL with the information requested.

Action Item: With the recent transfer of Job Corps from OASAM back to ETA, ETA will provide the NCFLL with the number employees moving by region and any space related concerns.

28

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Dorothy Thomas with OELMR on 11/02/10:

Employee LocationDate space will be ready

Where the OCM Regional staff will be located in relationship to ETA mainline

Edmond Pendleton Boston 11/1/10OCM will be co-located with ETA mainline

Gail Thomsen Philadelphia(projected) 11/09/2010

OCM will be located on the 7th floor West; ETA is on the 8th Floor East

James M Callan Philadelphia(projected) 11/09/2010

Carol Andry Atlanta 10/25/10

OCM will be located on the 7th floor; ETA is on the 6th floor; both in the mid-rise building.

Sandra Perkins Chicago 10/25/10OCM will be co-located with ETA mainline

Denise Morrissey Chicago 10/25/10

Linda Bynum Dallas (projected)2/1/2011OCM will be located on the 4th floor; ETA is located on the 3rd floor

Mary Lindsey Dallas (projected)2/1/2011

Sheryl AlgeeSan Francisco 10/25/10

OCM will be located on the 18th floor; ETA is located on the 17th floor

Chinjen ChangSan Francisco 10/25/10

Recently bargaining unit employees with Job Corps in the Chicago and Philadelphia Regions experienced delays in getting travel vouchers paid due to problems with New Core/E² interface and certain line items in the Job Corps fiscal appropriation being converted from a positive line item to a negative line item for FY 2010. What assurances or precautions have been taken by OCFO to insure that this problem does not happen again? (DL) (27) (This question will be addressed by OCFO on 10/21 @ 4:15 p.m.).

10:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

BREAK

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

BLS

Management Attendees: Jay Mousa, Associate Commissioner for Field Operations;Mike Allen, Labor Relations Officer

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which

29

decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (1)

Response: Mr. Mousa stated that he understands that OASAM will provide a response to this agenda item.

In the regions, two of the three programs (NCS and Price), have technical GS-13s. Fed State does not. When Fed State BUEs have asked BLS management why they do not have tech 13s, the response is to request a desk audit of their current GS-12 job. Point of fact is that the technical GS-13s in the other programs have different PDs and the jobs were created specifically with the duties of those PDs in mind. No desk audit was done on a GS-12 job in order to see if it could be upgraded to a GS-13. When will BLS start creating tech GS-13 jobs in Fed State like they have in other programs in the regions? (DL) (2)

Response: Mr. Mousa stated that there is one GS-13 techs in each region. He stated that they do complex work and deal with large companies as well as working with branch chiefs. Fed States have a narrow span of control and deal with tech work.

The NCS program is in the middle of upgrading laptops. Problems are being encountered with the new machines, they include: running slower than the old ones, which means it is taking more time for employees to do their work; laptops are breaking down at unprecedented rates; One Field Economist had her motherboard go out within three days of receiving their new laptop; a number of others had their keyboards break within a week or two of getting their new laptops. Additionally, BLS is forcing a tedious logon process that was not required in the past when working in a BLS office. This is all having a negative impact on the ability of the BUES in performing their work. Please discuss actions that BLS will take to address these problems. (DL) (3)

Response: We issued new laptops to three Regions (Chicago, Boston and San Francisco) in NCS this past summer. We heard from two regions that they had to replace some parts. Field Economists are told to report these problems immediately to supervisors. If employees have a problem, they can be shipped parts within 24 hours from time Regional Office submits the paperwork. We will keep an eye on this as three more regions must be given laptops. We are looking into the log-on process.

The NCFLL has heard that BLS in the San Francisco region has required some employees hired under Merit Staffing to sign agreements converting themselves to Career Intern. In many cases, these employees had already served over one year and had successfully completed their probationary period. Please discuss if this is happening/has happened elsewhere. (JD) (4)

Response: Mr. Mousa stated that this has only occurred in San Francisco Region.

30

Discussion: VP Darby asked why this occurred in the San Francisco Region. Mr. Mousa stated that an institutional grievance has been filed in the San Francisco Region on this issue and he is not able to provide further comment.

The NCFLL recently learned that a national meeting was held in Boulder, CO. on September 16, 2010 and all Industrial Price staff for the regions, including BCs and ARCs, were present. The presenters were Charlene Pfeiffer and Joyce Sweeny. At that meeting, it was announced that a confidentiality breach now applied to any BLS person outside of the Price program. Based on the above announcement, please respond to the following

a) Was notice provided to the NCFLL of this meeting? If not, why not

Response: Mr. Mousa stated that notice was not provided to the NCFLL of this meeting as it was technical training. He stated that it was his understanding of the contract that notice was not required since there were no changes made to any policy or the working conditions of bargaining unit employees. He stated that he has reviewed the training materials from the meeting and understood how it could be misconstrued as a change in working conditions.

b) If an Industrial Price BLS BUE is discussing cooperation issues about a company with a BLS Wage person, have both employees breached confidentiality?

Response: No. Mr. Mousa stated that we encourage people to share their knowledge

c) If an Industrial Price BLS BUE is discussing challenges they have received from respondents with co-workers, is that now a breach of confidentiality? (DL) (5)

Response: No. Mr. Mousa stated that there is no breach of confidentiality if the knowledge is being shared for a business reason.

Discussion: EVP Weyrauch asked if this would hold true if a BLS bargaining unit employee talked to a shop steward about an issue involving discipline. Mr. Mousa stated that specific information of a case can’t be discussed but can be redacted. Mr. Mousa stated that there are procedures in place to handle these types of issues if a grievance is involved.

Mr. Mousa stated that based on this feedback received from the NCFLL on this training, it will be modified in the future. Additionally, we will provide clarification to those attending the training in Boulder, CO. on the information they were provided. The clarified information will be communicated to employees through Regional Management.

31

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

LUNCH

1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

MSHA

Management Attendees: Lefawn Gaines, LRO; Eddie Lopez, Deputy Administrator, MNM; Maureen Walsh, Director A & M; Nancy Wilson, Acting HR Director; Robert Glatter, Director EPD; Tina Mayhugh, MAP, MNM; John Correll, Director S & HJane Tarr, MAP, Coal; Sayeed Hafeez, Director PEIR


Response: Ms. Gaines stated that MSHA was not prepared to address this agenda item since we thought it was going to be addressed by OASAM/OELMR. We will need to follow-up to the NCFLL on this agenda item. We have an item that may fit into the pre-decisional arena but it involves the Department so we will not be able to discuss it at this time.

Discussion: VP Tracy stated that this is an effort on our part to get a discussion going with the agency. VP Tracy stated that the NCFLL would like to engage MSHA in discussions on this as soon as possible. Donna Smith stated that MSHA is interested in PDI.

Action Item: MSHA to provide the NCFLL with a response to the agenda item raised under Executive Order 13522 on pre-decisional involvement. More specifically, MSHA will share with the NCFLL a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Donna Smith with OELMR on 11/03/10. According to her email, “MSHA would like the union to be involved with management with the training and application of the DOL First 40 policy guidance and would like the union to assist LMR in devising an action plan to improve communication between management and the union.”

MSHA sets a reimbursement limit for men’s safety boots at $188. There is no reimbursement limit for women. Several mines require metatarsal safety boots. Most of them run between $220 and $320.The NCFLL has two questions: Why is there a reimbursement limit for men and not for women? If metatarsal boots are required to enter several properties, why won’t MSHA reimburse the inspectors for the actual cost? Please discuss. (JD) (29)

32

Response: Mr. Correll stated that he saw no justification for a difference in safety boots reimbursement limits for men and women. He stated that he has conducted a review on the costs of safety boots and finds that a cap of $188 is reasonable and will be applicable to both men and women.

Discussion: VP Darby stated that we are seeing footwear in the $220 to $320 range. Mr. Correll stated that MSHA uses safetywear.com. for comparison of safety boot prices. He stated that 90 to 95% of the footwear found is under the $188 cap. He stated that if there are special circumstances where a purchase may exceed the $188 cap, MSHA can look at it on a case by case basis as permitted under the APPM. The inspector will need to discuss these special circumstances with their supervisor.

When a mine operator makes a threat to a mine inspector, what is the protocol in dealing with this situation? Do local managers have the ability to ignore the protocol and not notify district and Arlington that a threat has been made? (DD) (30)

Response: Jane Tarr asked if there are any specifics.

Discussion: EVP Weyrauch stated that we don’t know who these incidents should be reported. VP England suggested that the MSHA Academy could provide training to inspectors in helping them to de-escalate tense situations and prevent attacks on them. Ms. Tarr stated that the Policy Manual and Inspection Handbook Chapter 4. addresses protocols on reporting threats to inspectors by mine owners. Ms. Tarr stated that MSHA will provide the NCFLL with the information and/or links to the Policy manual.

Action Item : MSHA to provide the NCFLL with information and/or links to the Policy Manual and Inspection Handbook (Chapter 4) which addresses protocols in handling threats against a mine inspector.

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Donna Smith with OELMR on 11 /02 /10. According to the email, “This information is found in the Program Policy Manual, Section 103 – Assaulting, Intimidating, or Impeding Inspections and in the General Inspection Handbook, Chapter 4 – Assault of MSHA Personnel on Official Duty. Please refer to the two attachments as well.”

MSHA PROGRAM POLICY MANUAL VOLUME I

Section 103 Inspections, Investigations and Recordkeeping

I.103-1 Assaulting, Intimidating or Impeding Inspectors Section 111 of Title 18 of the United States Code makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with any person designated in Section 1114 of Title 18 while such person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of his/her official duties. It is a crime to assault, intimidate or impede MSHA employees who are assigned to perform investigative, inspection, or law enforcement functions. Thus, any person who assaults,

33

intimidates or impedes an MSHA inspector, while the inspector is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of his/her official duties, is subject to investigation and arrest by the FBI, prosecution by the U.S. Attorney in the federal courts, and to a fine and/or imprisonment.

MSHA policy requires the inspector to leave the scene where a confrontation appears to be developing into a situation where an apparent violation of Section 1114 or 111 is about to occur. In order to avoid a confrontation, the inspector should inform the person(s) that an attack on an MSHA inspector is a federal crime and that the person(s) may be subject to investigation and arrest by the FBI. If an inspector(s) believes that he/she may be subject to physical harm or assault, the inspector should leaveThe property immediately and promptly notifies his/her supervisor.

If an inspector encounters harassment or delays during a mine inspection, the inspector should attempt to complete the inspection without further provoking the operator. Afterwards, the inspector's supervisor should be contacted.

In the event of an assault, intimidation, harassment, or the impeding of an inspection, the supervisor is responsible for collecting all the facts, reducing them to writing, and contacting the district or assistant district manager. Where the assistant district manager is contacted, the assistant district manager must then immediately contact the district manager. The district manager will notify the Technical Compliance and Investigations Division (TCID) headquarters office for further instructions. Ifthe inspection is not the result of an imminent danger complaint, no inspection personnel should return to the mine without approval from headquarters. If it is an imminent danger complaint, an inspector and a supervisor should again attempt to conduct the inspection. No less than two inspection personnel should be sent to the mine property at this time.

Since the work of MSHA has been declared inherently governmental, why are contractors being used in the IT area in the Denver office? (DD) (31)

Response: Sayheed Hafeez stated that MSHA has converted four contractor positions in FY 2010. He stated that MSHA is planning to do more conversions in FY 2011 but they are currently on hold due to the current continuing resolution and budget constraints.

Why were four contractors hired for the distance learning program at the Academy instead of hiring term employees? (DD) (32)

Response: We had a requirement that came to us late in the year but we didn’t have the FTE’s to perform the work. As a result, we hired the contractors to perform the work.

Discussion: VP Newberry stated that he is concerned that the intent is for inspectors to take training away from the academy and doing it online. Jane Tarr stated that MSHA has no plans to do this. She stated that we still need to have face to face training.

34

Please provide an update of the ongoing review of MSHA Grade Levels including surface inspectors. (BN) (33)

Response: Nancy Wilson stated that this matter is currently at the Department level for final review. MSHA expects to share the position descriptions with the NCFLL by November 1, 2010.

Discussion: VP Newberry asked if there are plans by MSHA to increase the grade levels of any MSHA employees. Ms. Wilson stated that she can’t say anything on this matter at the present time since the matter is being reviewed at the Department level.

Action Item : MSHA to provide the NCFLL with the results of their ongoing review of MSHA Grade Levels, including surface inspectors along with position descriptions.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Donna Smith with OELMR on 11/02/10. According to the email, “At the present time, a final classification determination has not been received from Policy. Once received, the NCFLL will be informed of the status.”

What is the current schedule of replacement of desktop and laptop computers and printers? Laptop screens have escalating failure rates as well as the portable printers which are being replaced on an as needed basis which can take up to one month. (BN) (34)

Response: Maureen Walsh stated that she has met with all program managers. She stated that she has heard loud and clear that we need to have new computers. As we develop our budget for this year, I will discuss the IT issue. If we are under Continuing Resolution all year, we may not be able to purchase computers. She stated that she will work with Joe Main and MSHA management to discuss the budget.

Discussion: President DeMay asked why the computers were not purchased in FY 2010. Ms. Walsh stated that the Upper Big Branch investigation took the monies. VP Newberry asked why MSHA didn’t go to Congress for a supplemental to their budget. Jane Tarr stated that we got extra money. President DeMay asked what happened with the extra monies. Ms. Tarr stated that it was used on other priorities. VP Newberry expressed concerns with the critical nature and need for inspectors to have this equipment to conduct their work.

Nancy Wilson stated that Ms. Walsh is now the permanent Director of A&M and will be able to deal with issue. VP Newberry stated that Personal Dust Monitors (PDM’s) were purchased and the computer purchases were put on hold. VP Newberry stated that MSHA needs to do something in purchasing computers for its inspectors or he will go to Capitol Hill on his own time to talk to them about this.

Ms. Walsh stated that she hears us loud and clear and she will do her best in getting the computers purchased. Treasurer Wheeler asked if MSHA has considered leasing

35

computer. Sayheed Hafeez stated that funding is still an issue. Treasurer Wheeler asked the average age of computers in the field. Mr. Hafeez stated that they are four years old.

What progress has be made to evaluate how hazardous duty pay can be provided for MSHA Mine Rescue team members when they are involved in mine emergencies. (BN) (35)

Response: Nancy Wilson stated that Suzy Barker, Director of Human Resources, was working on this; however, Ms. Barker has retired and Jerome Bonner has taken over this assignment.

What is the current status of the review of the APPM Chapter 400 dealing with the First Forty schedule of work? (BN) (36)

Response: Lafawn Gaines stated that they are reviewing the entire APM and will make the necessary changes at the same time.

Discussion: VP Newberry stated that there is a problem with a paragraph in the APM that is contrary to our contract on First 40. President DeMay stated that MSHA may have a business reason for not making any changes until the APM is fully reviewed but we have a contract. We will consider this as the beginning of our 30 day period for filing a grievance if the necessary changes are not made to the APM in order to comply with the contract.

On November 12, 2009 notification was sent to the NCFLL informing us that Eastern Research Group had been awarded program evaluation funding to evaluate and assess MSHA’s Alternate Case Resolution/Litigation Process. What is the status of this evaluation process? (BN) (37)

Response: The report is in draft form with the Department and under internal review. We are not sure how long it will take to finalize the report.

Action Item : MSHA to provide the NCFLL with a copy of a report, when completed by the Eastern Research Group, involving the evaluation and assessment of MSHA’s Alternative Case Resolution/Litigation Process.

Response : An email response was provided to the NCFLL on 11/02/10 by Donna Smith with OELMR. According to her email, “The report has not been finalized. Once it is finalized it will be shared with the NCFLL.”

Discuss the agency involvement with the DOL Call Center. What volume of calls and/or email do they handle and what is our evaluation of their service? Is there consideration for returning this work to within the DOL? Is there a deadline for the renewal of the contract or for the process of re-bidding? (PT) (38)

36

Response: The call center receives 6,500 MSHA calls per year. Most of the calls are for Coal. MSHA is satisfied with the level of service received from the Call Center. The Call Center has a bi-lingual staff. All calls are recorded and reports are provided to MSHA. DOL employees never performed the work. DOL has a five year contract with the Call Center. The contract was renewed in September 2010.

Discussion: VP Tracy asked the amount MSHA is billed for its participation in the Call Center. MSHA agreed to research and provide the NCFLL with the dollar amount they are billed for the participation in the Call Center.

Action Item: MSHA to provide the NCFLL with the amount they are billed for participation in the Call Center.

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Donna Smith with OELMR on 12/03/10. According to her email, “In FY 2011, MSHA will pay the call center vendor $351,319.51 for the task order to provide MSHA specific services.”

3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.

BREAK

3:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.

CRC

Management Attendees: Ramon Suris-Fernandez, Director of Civil Rights Center; Naomi Barry-Perez - Chief, Office of Internal Enforcement


How does the Union get notification when EEO mediation will take place in a Region? (NN) (7)

Response: Most of our mediations focus on the informal phase. We are not required to notify the Union at the informal phase. We want to spend more of our time in the informal phase since this gives us the best opportunity for resolution. When we go to formal phase, the Union receives notification. We work with OELMR and they provide the notice to the Union.

Provide an explanation and legal cite as to why when an Agency is conducting an investigation of a Sexual Harassment complaint, bargaining unit employees can be

37

interviewed, but not permitted to have a union representative present, but can be reprimanded if they do not participate. (JW) (8)

Background. A manager observed an incident in an OSHA office between a manager and female bargaining unit member, filed a complaint with the regional office, an investigation was immediately started, and bargaining unit employees were interviewed by a regional manager, who happened to be an attorney, were denied union representation, but were told, as was the union, that any refusal to provide information in an interview could lead to disciplinary action

Response: The process of investigating a sexual harassment complaint is separate from other type of complaints. A manager must act promptly on sexual harassment complaints. Sexual Harassment complaints are handled by EEO and not CRC.

Discussion: President DeMay noted that witnesses were told by the manager investigating the complaint that a witnesses refusal to provide information could lead to disciplinary action.

Mr. Furis-Fernandez stated that he will pass on information to EEO investigators advising them to be careful about notifying witnesses that they can be subject to discipline should they decide not to cooperate in the investigation. Will future CRC training include the Secretary’s Order against hostile work environment and relief that is available as compared to EEO complaints? (DL) (9)

Response: Mr. Suris-Fernandez responded in the affirmative.

Discussion: RS Laurie asked about action taken when a supervisor is found guilty of creating a hostile work environment. Mr. Suris-Fernandez stated that any personnel action is subject to the discretion of the supervisor’s agency. Since CRC is not part of the process, they can’t become involved in personnel related actions.

4:45 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.

OASAM/WorkLife

Management Attendees: Deborah Dudley – Director, Office of WorkLife and Benefits

What guidance is being given to the Regions about Time Off awards? (NN) (53)

Response: Ms. Dudley provided the following information:

In May 2008, a memorandum was sent to DOL Managers and Supervisors from the OASAM HRO (Daliza Salas) outlining the various forms of awards available for use by management to reward DOL employees-including Time-Off Awards.

38

In February 2010, Michael Kerr distributed and discussed a document that outlined the various forms of awards available to DOL employees (including Time-Off Awards) at an Executive Staff Meeting. Agency Heads were asked to share the information with their managers and supervisors.

A draft memo has recently been prepared from Michael Kerr to Agency Heads outlining the various forms of awards available for use by management to reward DOL employees-including Time-Off Awards. Upon approval, this memo is targeted for release between October and November 2010. Regional Administrators and HROS will be copied. A similar memo is planned fro distribution from OASAM HRO (Gene Sexton) to Managers and Supervisors in March 2011.

Information regarding Time-Off Awards is posted on LaborNet at: http://labornet.dol.gov/me/awards/time-off-award.htm and http://labornet.dol.gov/me/awards/employeeawardsprogram.htm#2.6

Please provide information on the Child Care Subsidy program as called for in Article 51 G for the past 5 years. Discuss. (PT) (55) Response: A handout was provided on the Child Care Subsidy Program.

Note: Recording Secretary Laurie will email a copy of the Child Care Subsidy Program to all local presidents.

Discussion: VP Tracy raised concerns about the program being communicated to all employees. To that end, VP Tracy requested that a copy of the Child Care Subsidy Program be provided to the NCFLL under Article 51 G of the CBA, which includes: employee participation in connection with their duty station, total family income, and amount of subsidy, eligibility/ineligibility of applicants, and number and age of children coming under the program. Ms. Dudley agreed to provide the information requested.Action Item : OASAM/Worklife to provide the NCFLL with information contained in Article 51 G of the CBA. Information to include: employee participation in connection with their duty station, total family income, amount of subsidy, eligibility/ineligibility of applicants, and number and age of children coming under the program.

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 12/15/10. The information contained attachments involving DOL’s Child Care Subsidy Reports for 2008 and 2009.Note: Recording Secretary Laurie will email local presidents with DOL’s Child Care Subsidy Reports for 2008 and 2009.

39

http://labornet.dol.gov/me/awards/employeeawardsprogram.htm#2.6

http://labornet.dol.gov/me/awards/time-off-award.htm


October 19 -21, 2010

Thursday, October 21, 2010

9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.

OASAM/General

Management Attendees: Al Stewart, Director of Business Operations Center; Andy Glasgow, Human Resource Specialist, Office of HR Policy and Accountability; Kathy Greenlaw, Human Resource Specialist, Office of HR Policy and Accountability; Tracey Schaeffer – Director, Office of Administration and Management Services

Is the Form DL 1-177 (Authorization to Park Government-Owned Vehicle at or Near Employee’s residence) still required? (DL) (46)

Response: Al Stewart stated that the Form DL 1-77 is obsolete. The form doesn’t comply with 31 USC 1344. We have asked SOL for an opinion on how the form should be changed. We are awaiting a decision from SOL and should have it within the next two weeks. We will share\ a copy of the SOL decision with the NCFLL.

Action Item: OASAM will provide the NCFLL with a decision from SOL involving revisions to the Form DL-1777 (Authorization to Park Government –Owned Vehicle at or Near the Employee’s residence).

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 12/09/10. According to her email, “The DL 1-1777 is obsolete and being replaced with the DL 1-2102 (which is currently being revised) – however, until such time as the revised form is made available, managers and supervisors should continue to use whatever methods they currently have in place for requesting/receiving permission to park at/near an employee’s home.”

A September 10, 2010 memo from Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry directs agency chief human capital officers to extend annually 24 hours of leave without pay to federal employees and their same-sex domestic partners. What is the status of this change in policy within the Department? (DW) (50)

Response: We have developed a spotlight on this leave policy and it is currently in the last stage of the approval process. A copy of the spotlight will be provided to the NCFLL and distributed to employees upon approval.

Action Item: OASAM to provide the NCFLL with a spotlight on the extension of 24-Hour Family Support Policy to Same -Sex Domestic Partners.

40

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles on 10/27/10. The information contained Spotlight # 927, dated October 2010 - Extension of 24-Hour Family Support Policy to Same -Sex Domestic Partners was emailed to the NCFLL on 1028/10 by Sheila Lyles with OELMR.

Note: Recording Secretary Laurie will email local presidents with a copy of the Spotlight #927.

Discussion on DOL management providing notice to all BUES about their rights to choose any work scheduled allowed by the collective bargaining agreement. (JD) (51)

Response: Mr. Goodell stated that they were unsure of the question since all bargaining unit employees are under the variable week and have the option to choose a different schedule as provided for by the contract.

Discussion: VP Darby stated that the issue is with some managers who will tell bargaining unit employees that the office hours are from 8 am to 4:30 pm and they are expected to be there during those hours. Mr. Goodell stated that they will communicate a clarification on this out to the field.

People Time will not pay overtime unless each day has 8 hours charged.EXAMPLE: If an employee works 6 hours on Monday, 12 hours (with authorized OT) on Tuesday, 9 hours on both Wednesday and Thursday, and 10 hours (with authorized OT) on Friday, People Time will not pay the OT without the employee charging 2 hours of leave for Monday. The system will not allow the balancing of hours over the week (to equal 40) plus the OT. Please discuss what steps can be taken to correct this. (BT) (104)

Response: Ms. Greenlaw stated that they met with representatives from the OCFO who administers the system. She stated that they tried to replicate the scenario in the system and it worked and we were able to close PeopleTime. Discussion: President DeMay stated the scenario described in the agenda item was a situation encountered by a bargaining unit employee. The employee was told by his supervisor to work different hours (outside of core hours). In order for him to close People Time, he had to cover core hours with his own leave. President DeMay stated that he has the specific information on this at this office. Ms. Greenlaw asked President DeMay to provide her the specifics on this and she will follow-up. President DeMay agreed to provide the information to Ms. Greenlaw.

LATE ENTRY

The People Time system is not letting employees use the comp time they have earned within the same pay period. In other words, if an employee earns comp time on a day early in the pay period and attempts to use that same comp time later in the same pay period the People Time system will not allow it. Discuss a workaround to this system glitch. (PT)

41

Response: Ms. Greenlaw stated that an employee can’t use comp time in the same pay period in which it is earned per 5 CFR 550.114(d), just like you are unable to use credit hours in the same pay period it is earned. Furthermore, she stated that earned comp time must be taken by the 26th pay period after it is earned or it will be forfeited. 9:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.

OASAM/General

Management Attendees: Doug Goodell, Director of OELMR; Yolanda Owens, Supervisory Human Resources Specialist-OELMR; Andy Glasgow, Human Resource Specialist, Office of HR Policy and Accountability; Tracey Schaeffer – Director, Office of Administration and Management Services

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (39)

Response/ Discussion: President DeMay expressed concern with this agenda item being taken away from the agencies to discuss and to have OASAM providing a response. He stated that some agencies have responded to the agenda item and others have not. Doug Goodell stated that he will discuss this with the agency Administrative Officers today during a teleconference and encourage them to respond. VP Darby encouraged the regions to do the same. WH has several offices called “satellite offices”. These offices are offices in which there is a supervisor and BUEs. The Contract allows the NCFLL to have an Article 6 steward in offices in which there is a supervisor. OASAM in at least one region has told the NCFLL that WH satellite offices cannot have a steward because they are just “extensions” of the District Office. Please discuss. (JD) (40)

Response: Mr. Goodell stated that Article 6 of the contract is clear. If there is an onsite supervisor, the office is entitled to a union steward.

Discussion: President DeMay stated that a conversation is needed with local management on this and Mr. Goodell agreed to have that conversation.

Please provide copies and discuss the results of OASAM audits conducted in Personnel Office during the past year. (DL) (41)

Response: Mr. Glasgow stated that merit staffing reviews have been conducted in the Atlanta, Boston and Chicago regions during the past year. The reviews have been completed of the Atlanta and Chicago Regions. (Copies of the reviews findings were provided to the NCFLL. The Boston review has not been completed as we are awaiting

42

corrective action to be taken. The reviews are not considered complete until corrective actions are taken. Once the corrective actions are taken on the Boston review, a copy of the review will be provided to the NCFLL.

Discussion: President DeMay asked how often the merit staffing reviews are conducted. Mr. Glasgow responded that the reviews are conducted every two years but some reviews had to be delayed. He stated that they have developed a schedule for future reviews. President DeMay asked if a copy of future Merit Staffing reviews can be provided to the NCFLL and Mr. Glasgow agreed to provide the information.

Action Item: OASAM to provide the NCFLL with the schedule of Merit Staffing Reviews in the Regions and a copy of the recently conducted Merit Staffing Review in the Boston Region.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 1/05/10. According to her email, it stated “Please find attached the first portion of follow-up action item # 41. The recently conducted Merit Staffing Review in the Boston Region has not been completed yet. We will send it to you once it is completed.”

Department of Labor

Office of Human Resources Policy and Accountability (OHRPA)Schedule of Accountability Reviews

FY 2011-2013

AGENCY DATE

Philadelphia Region January 24-28, 2011Atlanta March 28-April 1, 2011

OASAM/HRC June 6-10, 2011MSHA August 8-12, 2011

San Francisco Region October10-14, 2011Dallas/Denver December 5-9, 2011

OSHA February 6-10, 2012Atlanta March 26-30, 2012

Solicitors Office (SOL) May 14-18, 2012Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) July 16-20, 2012

Chicago Region August 20 – 24, 2012Employment and Training

Administration(ETA)

September 24 - 28, 2012

Boston/NY Region November 5-9, 2012Philadelphia January 28-February 1, 2013

43

Atlanta March 25-29, 2013OASAM/HRC May 27-31, 2013

MSHA July 29-Aug 2, 2013San Francisco Region September 30-October 1, 2013

Dallas/Denver December 6-10, 2013Revised October 20, 2010

________________________________________________________________________

Below is part of an e-mail that was sent by Assistant Secretary Kerr.

DOL Day is an opportunity for Department of Labor (DOL) employees to celebrate the positive contributions we make to America’s workers and the mission of the Department. This year, DOL Day will be held on Friday, September 17, 2010. All activities will take place from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on the Frances Perkins Building rooftop. Why are not plans made to have similar celebrations for the vast majority of the Department’s employees who do not work in the Perkins Building? (DD) (42)

Response: Ms. Schaeffer stated that we focus on DOL employees in the Frances Perkins Building but there is nothing that prevents the regions from having similar events in the regions.

Discussion: President DeMay asked why we are not doing anything in the field since we are celebrating DOL Day. He asked “Aren’t we one DOL?” He stated that it is offensive to the field when DOL Day is only celebrated in the Frances Perkins Building. VP Tucker stated that it is a kick in the teeth to field employees when they see the emails announcing that DOL Day is being celebrated at the Frances Perkins Building but nothing in the field. Ms. Schaeffer stated that they will continue to work with the regional folks to encourage them to have similar events out in the field.

President DeMay stated that DOL Day can be equated to flu shots. DOL employees in the Frances Perkins Building have the opportunity to obtain flu shots but the same opportunity is not provided to DOL employees in the field.

10:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

BREAK

44

11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

EBSA

Management Attendees: Brian McDonnell – Administrative Officer; Virginia Smith- Director, Office of Enforcement; Sharon Watson – Director, Office of Participant Assistance; Bill Barron, Deputy Director, Office of Participant Assistance; Diane Schweizer – Director, Office of Information Technology and ServicesJames Hampton – Chief, Division of Human Capital Management


Response: Mr. McDonnell stated that it was his understanding that this agenda item will be answered by OASAM.

The journey level Benefit Advisor position was recently upgraded to a GS-12 and the Lead Benefit Advisor position was upgraded to GS-13. Please provide a status update on the number of BA employees by office/Region that has been upgraded to the new GS-12/13 level. If any eligible employees have not been upgraded, please explain. (DL) (11)

Response: The upgrades were approved on September 7, 2010 and the NCFLL was advised that morning. During the afternoon, a video was sent out to all EBSA employees by Assistant Secretary Borzi announcing the upgrades. Effective with pay period 10, any eligible GS-11 who was performing at the satisfactory level was promoted to GS-12. Additionally, each region can have up to 35% of their BA staff at the GS-13 level. A breakdown by regions with the status of the BA upgrades was provided in a chart form.

Note: Recording Secretary Laurie will email local presidents with a copy of the BA grade level upgrade chart.

Under the category “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” discuss the journey level grades of Investigators and Auditors. The recent action to upgrade the Benefit Advisor career ladder has caused a stir in the field investigative ranks. (PT) (12)

Response: The BA upgrade was based on the additional requirements of their job and technical knowledge. We have no plans to increase the grade level of FieldInvestigators/Auditors.

Discussion: RS Laurie stated that each region is allowed to have 35% of its Investigator/Auditors at the GS-13 level but not all regions have employees at this grade level. Brian McDonnell stated that the decision to promote Investigators/Auditors to the GS-13 level is at the discretion of the Regional Directors. RS Laurie asked Mr.

45

McDonnell if EBSA can provide a breakdown by region with the number of GS-13’s positions and he agreed.

Action Item: EBSA to provide the NCFLL with a breakdown by region with the number of GS-13 Investigator/Auditor positions available but not filled.

Response : Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles on 11/05/10. The information contained a chart which depicts the breakdown by region of the GS-13 Investigator/Auditor positions available but not filled.

Note: Recording Secretary Laurie to email local presidents with a chart on the status of GS-13 Investigator/Auditor positions available but not filled by Regions.

Discussion and update of BA and ARRA inquiries (i.e., COBRA calls) and the COBRA appeals workload on Benefit Advisors. As part of the discussion, please provide a break down on the number of BA and ARRA inquiries as well as the number of COBRA appeals received and processed respectively by each Regional Office for FY 2009, FY 2010 and from October 1, 2010 to date. (DL) (13)

Action Item: EBSA to provide the NCFLL with an electronic copy of handouts provided during National LMR Meetings, which includes: a break down on the number of BA and ARRA inquiries as well as the number of COBRA appeals received and processed respectively by each Regional Office for FY 2009, FY 2010 and from October 1, 2010 to date.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Stuart Fields with OELMR on 10/29 /10. The information contained numerous charts and graphs.

Note: Recording Secretary Laurie will email local presidents with electronic copies of the charts and graphs provided.

What percentage of temp/term BA’s hired under ARRA funding has been converted to permanent positions? (DL) (14)

Action Item : EBSA to provide the NCFLL with an electronic copy of the charts provided during the LMR meetings which show the status of EBSA Temporary BA’s hired under ARRA funding.

Response : Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Stuart Fields with OELMR on 10/29/10.

Note: Recording Secretary Laurie will email local presidents with electronic copies of the charts received.

46

What provisions are being taken to lessen the impact on the existing BA’s as the temp/term employees are separated at the end of FY 2010? (DL) (15)

Response: The ARRA related inquiries will be decreasing. Any future intakes will be handled through the National Office instead of in the field. We have been proactive in keeping information updated. We are still concerned with the BA workload.

On May 26, 2010, the NCFLL was provided notice of plans by EBSA to distribute a voluntary questionnaire to its field Auditors/Investigators pertaining to their preferences on the issuance of credentials with badges. Has the survey been completed? If so, please provide a copy of the survey results and discuss. (DL) (16)

Response: A survey was provided to the NCFLL and to the field staff. We are moving forward with the badges. The development of the implementation plan will be handled out of KC with RA Steve Eischen. Mr. McDonnell stated that an NCFLL representative can work with RA Eischen on the implementation plan.

Discussion: RS Laurie stated that he would like to be involved in working with RA Eischen on the implementation plan.

Were the budgeted amounts for the "Special Act/Service Awards" reduced for FY 2010? If so, please discuss. (DL) (17)

Response: Mr. McDonnell stated that the amounts were actually increased. In FY 2009, the budgeted amounts for the Special Act/Service Awards were $124,000. IN FY 2010, the amount was increased to $136,000.

Does EBSA have Investigative Assistants in any offices besides Chicago? If yes, please provide the offices. If no, please discuss why there are not Investigative Assistants. (DL) (18)

Response: Mr. McDonnell stated that EBSA has 20 assistants nationwide; although they are titled differently by Region. Their grade levels are GS-6 to GS-8 and job series is 1802.

Action Item: EBSA to provide the NCFLL with the number of Investigative Assistants by Region.

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 11/0510.

Note: Recording Secretary Laurie will email local presidents with a copy of the report which depicts the number of investigative assistants by region.

47

On September 3, 2010, the NCFLL of plans by EBSA to implement a new log-on procedure for the Enforcement Management System (EMS), effective October 30, 2010. Please discuss the log-in procedures in more detail (Will employees be logging on to their particular region? Will the log-on procedures apply when employees are working in the field or on flexi-place? (DL) (19)

Response: Virginia Smith stated that EMS is used to keep track of enforcement activities. The log-on procedures had to be changed. Log-on procedures will be the same in the field and when on flexi-place. Once the change is in place, you will not have sign-in to EMS and enter a password. The scheduled effective date for these changes is October 30, 2010 but this may be delayed. A few changes to be made include: Pic list for Regional projects will change; due to sample investigation program (300 investigations nationwide); we will need to add this to the Pic List menu. There will be tweaks to EMS to track these sample investigations. Guidance will be provided to the field on this. This should have minimal impact to staff.

EBSA - Management Items:

1. Workstation Equipment Life Cycle Replacement

Equipment is five years old. Software is that old as well. Equipment is breaking down and software is being upgraded which is

causing storage requirements. We have purchased new equipment for everyone. Everyone will get new

laptops or desktops. Laptops have been standard for investigators. Plans are for them to have

laptops. Those who are normally in the office, we have surveyed Regional

Directors for their input on computer needs. Software to be upgraded to Office 2010 with word, excel, etc. Testing of equipment is necessary and will go on for months. Testing has

been going well. We are encouraging employees to archive emails. Equipment will probably not go out until the first of next year.

Discussion: VP Tucker asked about the number of computers involved. Ms. Smith stated that we are looking at 1100 but are purchasing additional ones, especially for COOP purposes.

VP Tucker about the costs and any special appropriations. Ms. Smith stated that we have been preparing for this.

VP Tracy about the plan for the excess computers. Ms. Smith that we are working on this. We don’t get much for old equipment. The computers will be wiped clean by the Department.

48

2. Software Upgrade to Windows 7 and Microsoft Office Suite 2010 (see above)

3. Email Archiving (See above)

4. Participant Assistance Call Management System (See handout sentelectronically)

Briefing; Sharon Watson briefed the NCFLL on the following:

Over the past years, EBSA has seen an increase in the Benefits Advisors’ workload primarily due to new legislation. We are constantly looking for new and innovative ways to manage the workload to make us more efficient and at the same time continue to provide the same quality of customer service to the participants and beneficiaries who need our help.

We have learned that being able to respond to calls live reduces workload by saving call back time, eliminating duplicative calls from the inquirers, and reducing complaints to Members of Congress, the Secretary or others for failure to respond timely to complaints.

The Agency had the opportunity late in the year to purchase new telephone equipment and call management software, made by Nfocus, that we believe will provide a means for streamlining our intake of calls and making our process for handling the calls more efficient for the BAs and the overall program.

We informed the NCFLL and set up a demonstration in our Washington District Office for the NCFLL representative to observe how the process would work.

While we have purchased the new telephone switches and the Nfocus software, we have not implemented new procedures. We have drafted guidelines and parameters that our regions should follow, in the form of an SOP.

Note: The Draft SOP was previously emailed to local presidents and the NCFLL was subsequently filed a bargaining request on this

5. Paperless System for Benefits Advisors

Briefing: Sharon Watson briefed the NCFLL on the following:

EBSA’s Benefits Advisor (BA) staff and managers have faced significant challenges since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended (Recovery Act). Although Recovery Act inquiries and appeals of COBRA premium subsidy denials have diminished as the eligibility period for the subsidy has not been extended, new requests for assistance associated with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) are expected to grow

49

significantly over the next two years as ACA provisions and regulations become effective.

EBSA has developed strategies to address this service delivery challenge with minimal increases in personnel resources. After the enactment of the Recovery Act, EBSA had to develop a module within our tracking system (TAIS) to process applications within 15 business days. We successfully upgraded TAIS to allow for the e-filing of applications, the attachment of documents to the inquiry file automatically via fax, and the electronic approval of letters. Staff appreciated these enhancements due the tight deadlines. We propose to capitalize on the core technological investment described above to address EBSA’s statutory responsibilities under the Recovery Act, expanding the paperless capacity to more types of customer interactions. While the return on this investment cannot be specifically quantified, substantial benefits are expected to arise from simplifying internal processes and reducing the repeated handling of many of EBSA’s inquiries.

EBSA plans to improve the inquiry and complaint intake process for web users, and to encourage the submission of all complaints through the web. We will redesign the web form and modify the web interface with the database. Web intake is advantageous in that the interface with the database populates the incoming record without BA intervention, saving 1 to 2 minutes per record that is otherwise devoted to data entry. At 2 minutes per record, every additional 240 inquiries received via the web result in the savings of one day of staff time. In addition, the nature of the problem as stated by the inquirer is also input into the record so that the individual assigning the inquiries can gain efficiency by making more informed decisions on distributing the work.

We also plan to design a web portal that will be easy for plan officials to use to provide the requested documents, and to incorporate in the processing system an automated notice when the documents are received and a reminder when they are not received in a specified timeframe. The system will also incorporate the flexibility of fax servers and bar codes as an alternative to the web portal for providing documents. These features should ensure a quick receipt of the request, lessen the wait time for documents, and reduce the number of times the BA needs to check the progress of the inquiry. After an initial discussion with the plan official, the use of e-mail for contact should also lower the number of missed calls or “phone tag.”

The electronic submission of documents has the additional advantage of reducing administrative handling by automatically uploading the documents to the electronic inquiry record. The resulting electronic record will be a complete account of the contact with an inquirer. BAs will not need to devote time to filing paper or sharing paper documents with reviewers, or finding the documents at some later date, as they will become a permanent part of the record available at any time to persons with authorized access. Participants will also be able to

50

supply the documents in their possession that may be needed to informally resolve benefit claim disputes through the web portal or fax server, decreasing resources currently devoted to receiving and storing those documents.

The specialized e-mail functionality will also allow BAs to tailor and supervisors to review draft e-mails where appropriate that will be sent from a centralized EBSA mailbox rather than from the individual BA. This will not only establish a simplified process to ensure the quality of written communications, but will also result in a comprehensive electronic record accessible to all authorized users. When used appropriately, e-mail with plan participants can significantly reduce the number of contacts required to resolve an inquiry. E-mail appears to reach the inquirer more effectively, reducing the exchanging of messages. For this reason e-mail is now used with greater frequency, but to date it has not been integrated with the database.

Limiting the handling of paper documents as a result of improved e-mail processes, increased e-mail use, and the electronic submission and “filing” of documents will streamline the internal administrative aspects of inquiry processing. EBSA also plans to leverage the success it achieved in the design of the correspondence processing component used to address requests for review of the denial of the premium reduction under the Recovery Act. This component includes a paperless drafting, review, and approval process. While the letters are signed by an authorized official, only a final electronic copy is required to be maintained. With programming and procedural changes, this functionality can be added for all inquiry types.

EBSA plans to make additional changes to the correspondence module that should further streamline the drafting of high quality correspondence. Management and staff will collaborate to create and index effective standard language letters on a wide range of technical subjects that can be selected and combined with tailored text within the database, and then sent forward for review, signature, and mailing. Availability of standard language would make the drafting process more efficient for many of the 10,000 letters that will otherwise be written, placed in an inbox for review, corrected, placed on a desk for signature, signed, photocopied, mailed, and filed in both case and chronological files this year.

While many people who seek EBSA’s assistance communicate electronically, our experience with Recovery Act reviews has demonstrated that there are still many people who prefer to mail paper correspondence and documents. EBSA plans to leverage the system advancements made in connection with Recovery Act reviews by expanding the use of scanners and fax servers to convert paper documents directly to the related electronic inquiry record. All incoming correspondence would be scanned to corresponding inquiry records, eliminating the need to distribute, maintain, and file most paper once appropriate record retention and evidentiary procedures have been satisfied.

51

We plan to develop this new process throughout FY 2011 with implementation scheduled for FY 2012. We hope to work with the NCFLL to develop this more efficient and effective means for processing our inquiry workload. It would be particularly helpful to have individuals who had experience using the paperless COBRA/ARRA processing system work with management on the development of this process.

6. Customer Satisfaction Surveys

2009-2010 COBRA/ARRA Subsidy Review Determinations

Briefing: Sharon Watson provided the following briefing to the NCFLL:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) sought to assist the unemployed by providing a 65% premium subsidy for up to 15 months for assistance eligible individuals. Initially, to be “assistance eligible” the individual must have been involuntarily terminated from employment between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 (this December 31, 2009 date was extended multiple times ultimately to May 31, 2010). The mechanism for the subsidy is as follows: the terminated employee would be considered as having paid the premium in full by paying 35% of the premium. The employer initially pays 65% of the premium and is then reimbursed through a payroll tax credit.

Employers initially decide if a terminated employee is eligible for the subsidy. The Recovery Act protected this right by also providing those denied the subsidy by their employers a right to request a review of that decision by the Secretary of Labor. Recognizing that those denied the subsidy needed to have a final decision quickly, the law required the Labor Department to make these final determinations within 15 business days.

EBSA’s Benefits Advisors have handled over 23,000 appeals. Over 99% of the determinations were issued within the 15 business days. Over 75% of the appeals were granted resulting in benefits restored to workers and their families valued at nearly $50 million. In addition the Benefits Advisors have handled over 250,000 inquiries related to the COBRA/ARRA subsidy.

The Recovery Act required that agencies develop performance measures and goals for these programs. The primary metric established for the COBRA Appeals process was the percentage of determinations issued within 14 business days. The Agency exceeded that goal. In addition, EBSA will be conducting a survey to determine the customer satisfaction rate for those who submitted appeals to the Department.

EBSA has engaged CFI Group which will use the well known American Customer Satisfaction Index protocol to conduct the study.

52

As the program is ending, EBSA will provide contact and other TAIS data for all of the applicants since the inception of the program for CFI Group to conduct a telephone survey. The survey will need to be approved by OMB to ensure it complies with Paperwork Reduction Act and we expect the survey to begin in mid to late November. There are no future studies planned for this program.

CFI Group will produce one final report at the conclusion of the survey that will provide an agency level score as well as scores for each regional office. TAIS data will be used in conjunction with data gathered through the survey to provide detailed insight into our customers’ perception of the service we provided. Scores will not be generated for each Benefits Advisor; however, the agency level and office level results will be shared with all staff.

While conducting a previous customer satisfaction study on the participant assistance program, we found that the data generated was invaluable in helping us to understand the needs of the citizens we serve. We expect this study to be similarly useful. I am available to answer any questions you may have.

2011 Participant Assistance Program

Briefing: Sharon Watson provided the NCFLL with the following information:

BSA first evaluated its Participant Assistance Program’s customers’ satisfaction in 1995. A random sample of both written and telephone inquirers was selected by our own Office of Policy and Research; a contractor was hired to make the customer calls and record answers to the survey. Customers were asked to rate our service based on three factors: courteousness, knowledge of staff, and understandability of our response. They were asked to rate these factors as good, average or below average. In 1996, our scores were:

RatingsGood Average Below Average

Telephone 67% 15% 13%Written 53% 28% 24%

In FY 2001, we again evaluated customer satisfaction. Wanting to use a more scientific approach, we worked through the Department to be a part of a consolidated customer satisfaction evaluation process conducted by the University of Michigan. Using their trademarked American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) survey, all participating agencies were evaluated and assigned a score. EBSA received a satisfaction score of 53% that year. Shortly after receiving the results of that study, EBSA established customer satisfaction as its performance measure for GPRA purposes and undertook a multi-year study.

53

Over the course of fiscal years 2003-2006, EBSA engaged the Gallup Organization to develop a similar rating program that would allow us to not only determine the customer’s overall satisfaction but to distinguish the scores by type of inquiry, subject matter (health benefits vs. pension) and by office. While the survey still measures our customers’ overall satisfaction, regardless of their type of inquiry, it is very useful for us to be able to see how certain underlying factors may influence the ratings. Gallup also provided the agency and benefits advisors with individual results. Individual BA scores were used for training purposes only. The data produced over the course of the 4 year study was critical in helping the agency improve its customer satisfaction score from 62% to 69%. In 2008, the participant assistance program was awarded the Citizens Service award from the General Services Administration for the tremendous improvement in service achieved by the benefits advisors.

EBSA was able to improve its performance by developing an environment which did the following:

holds supervisors and managers accountable for the services provide; meeting the annual GPRA goal was made a part of the supervisors and managers’ performance standards

ensures that people in the front-line positions and supervisory positions possess the right talents and aptitude for the positions; provides feedback and training for those individuals who need to improve.

fosters good customer service; management must be the driving force. takes the goal of improving customer service seriously; meets and evaluates

progress regularly and takes time to understand and plan actions for improvement.

Due to budget constraints, the study was suspended for several years. However, EBSA will again embark on a multi-year customer satisfaction study with Gallup, Inc., this time for 5 years. The customer satisfaction survey is a component of EBSA’s FY 2011 operating plan and will serve as the primary measurement of the Participant Assistance Program’s results.

FY 2011 will be the first year of the study and the data will establish a new EBSA baseline performance measure as well as establish goals for the following years. The current study will be modeled on the previous study but will incorporate the new closure codes (i.e., benefit assistance, valid complaint, invalid complaint, etc) and subject codes (health vs. pension) in TAIS to provide insight into the results of the survey.

The survey will utilize current data; samples will be drawn every two weeks from closed inquiry files in TAIS. The will include all inquiries handled by phone and those handled by mail or email if a phone number is available. OMB is required to approve the survey to determine its impact on our customers under the Paperwork Reduction Act. We hope to begin surveying by mid-November.

54

Gallup will provide agency wide and office level data at the midyear and at the end of the fiscal year. In addition, Gallup will provide an individual report for each BA for whom enough data is collected at the end of the fiscal year. The individual BA reports will be distributed privately to each BA by the supervisor and will be used for training purposes and to provide feedback to the individual BAs so that they can better understand their customers’ views.

We found over the course of the previous study that the data provided was invaluable in helping the benefits advisors and managers improve our services and build a citizen centric program that we can all be proud of . I am available to answer any questions you may have.

7. Benefits Advisor Upgrade Status (See EBSA Agenda item #11 response)

8. Single Sign-In for Enforcement Management System (See EBSA Agenda item #9 response)

9. Development of Investigative Aids to Implement the Health Reform Law

Briefing: Virginia Smith stated that investigative aids will be developed and tested and make changes as necessary to make them user friendly. After development, testing and changes are made, we will roll out

12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

LUNCH

1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.

OFCCP

Management Attendees: Rachel Torres, Director, DMAP; Carol Qualls, Human Resources Coordinator

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (60) (This question will be addressed by OASAM/OELMR). From OFCCP Southeast, Atlanta District Office: “I am told that OFCCP Southeast regional office is very thrifty in spending. We have no supplies in order to accomplish our daily duties. We recycle every file folder, paper clamp, etc. We were given glue sticks for Christmas along with pens that don’t write. This week during our meeting, we inquired about supplies again and were told that something would be said, as the agency was changing ordering systems. I purchased two reams of paper on my own but I cannot

55

supply for the whole office.” What can be done to get OFCCP Southeast employees the materials and supplies that they need to accomplish the work? (DW) (61)

Response: Ms. Torres stated that they were not aware of this problem and is addressing it with the Regional Director in Atlanta. She stated that no OFCCP employee should be paying for supplies out of their own pocket. The funding is there to purchase these items.

Discussion: Ms. Qualls asked if there is a specific office with this problem. Treasurer Wheeler stated that this problem is region wide. He stated that he has been told that local managers are submitting requests for supplies but they are being rejected by the RO. Ms. Torres stated that she will look for this. Ms. Torres stated that the NCFLL needs to notify their BUES that they should not purchase their own supplies out of their pockets.

What is the policy of OFCCP on the use of PPE when employees go onsite at places such as construction sites? (DD) (62)

Response : Ms. Torres stated that she queried the Regional Directors concerning this question and found that all regions, except for one, provide employees with safety goggles, vests, and hard hats. She stated that she has instructed the one region who hasn’t been providing the PPE to do so.

Do you have a safety training program for OFCCP employees who go on site? Can we get a copy of this training program? (DD) (63)

Response: One region is working with OSHA to provide training in their region next month. Once this training is done, we will look at coordinating similar training in other regions.________________________________________________________________________OFCCP has been replacing computers on a schedule of about every 3 years. Is there any schedule for replacing external keyboards and monitors or will they just be replaced as they break down? (DD) (64)

Response: Ms. Torres stated that external keyboards and monitors are replaced as necessary. She stated that they stockpile keyboards and monitors in the National Office.

New EOS hires in the Midwest Region are hired at the GS-5 level regardless of prior education/experience whereby other Regions are hiring at GS-7 and GS-9 levels. Please explain. (DL) (65)

Response: Ms. Torres stated that Regions are given the authority to hire at the level they prefer. She stated that one school of thought by some Regional Directors is to start a new hire out at a lower level and train them.

Discussion: President DeMay stated that people talk and the inequities are upsetting when a person finds out that they were hired in at a lower level and another employee in another region with the same education/experience is hired in at a higher level. President

56

DeMay asked if regions other than the Midwest are hiring new hires at a GS-5 only. Ms. Torres stated that some regions advertise at a GS-5/7/9 or a 7/9. President DeMay stated that only advertising at a GS-5 when they are qualified at a higher level doesn’t appear to be a fair system. VP England stated that this sounds like a budget issue. Ms. Torres stated that this is an area we need to review further. One possibility is to advertise the entry level positions at a GS 5/7/9 vs. a GS-5 only and let the new hire begin at the level they qualify.

Midwest Region contractor investigations are conducted differently than other regions and closed with different procedures. As an example, quality audits are conducted for every case in the Midwest Region and only selectively in other regions. Will these differences disappear in the future and will the process become more uniform? (DL) (66)

Response: Ms. Torres stated an email was sent out on 10/21/10 establishing consistent procedures in conducting contractor investigations.

Action Item : OFCCP to provide the NCFLL with a copy of the 10/21/10 email sent by Director Shiu to OFCCP staff on consistency in the regions for conducting business.

Response: As requested, a copy of Director Shiu’s email of 10/21/10 was forwarded to the NCFLL on the same date by Carol Qualls with OFCCP. The email is below.

From: Shiu, Patricia A - OFCCP Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:43 AMTo: zzOFCCP-ALLSubject: National Office Training

Dear OFCCP Staff,

Please be advised that the training that was provided to compliance officers both in Washington, D.C. and Minnesota defines the ways and methods in which I want OFCCP to undertake investigations and audits, and other protocols. I have been advised that some personnel are contradicting that policy and advising their staff otherwise. Let me be clear: the purpose of the national training was to develop excellence and consistency among the regions in the way that OFCCP conducts business. It was developed by the Regions in conjunction with the National Office, and I expect that it will be followed and that all managers will honor the letter and spirit of my policy. This is particularly important during this interim period when OFCCP is rewriting its FCCM. I expect that all managers will do their best to assist compliance officers as we continue to implement Secretary Solis’s vision of “Good Jobs for Everyone.” If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

Director Shiu

Patricia A. Shiu, DirectorUS Department of Labor

57

Office of Federal Contract Compliance ProgramsE-Mail: [email protected]

Five of the nine OFCCP District Offices in the Midwest Region have no manager located in the office and bargaining unit employees must report to a manager that is located in a different city. Please discuss agency plans for having a manager located in each District Office for the Midwest Region. (DL) (67)

Response: This will be an area addressed as part of an organization assessment by will be conducted of the entire OFCCP organization by an outside contractor. We have a management item on the agenda to brief the NCFLL on this organizational assessment.

Mgt. item: Organizational Assessment

Briefing: Ms. Torres stated that a contractor hired by OFCCP to conduct an organizational assessment of each OFCCP Region. The assessment will focus on the number of FTE’s and how work is assigned; the structure of RegionalOffices. The purpose of the assessment is to determine what is working and what is not. She stated that during the last eight years, the regions have been operating as separate OFCCP Office. The emphasis will be on establishing consistencies.She stated that Bargaining Unit Employees will be notified of this assessment. Focus groups will be held and the NCFLL will be permitted to have representatives attend.

Discussion: VP Tracy asked if we can pre-decisional involvement in the report. Additionally, he noted that there may be issues where a Labor Management Forum may be possible. President DeMay asked if the District Offices will be included in the Focus Groups. Ms. Torres responded in the affirmative to VP Tracy and President DeMay’s inquiries.

2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

OASAM/General

Management Attendees: Doug Goodell, Director-OELMR; Yolanda Owens,

Until recently, Labor Net contained the collective bargaining agreement in a word document format. Currently, it is in a PDF format. Is it possible to have the collective bargaining agreement in a word format? (DL) (48)

Response: We are talking to IT about this. OELMR will provide the NCFLL with the collective bargaining agreement in a word document format.

Action Item: OELMR will provide the NCFLL with the collective bargaining agreement in a word document format.

58

Response : On 11/12/10, Sheila Lyles with OELMR sent an email to the NCFLL stating that Management is able to provide the collective bargaining agreement in a word document format. The document will require proofing before it is posted on the Labor Net. Management is not able to complete this before mid-December. A follow-up email was provided to the NCFLL on 12/08/10 by Ms. Lyles, which stated: ““It is going to take a substantial amount of time to review and edit (we have completed the conversion piece). With the holidays and use or lose we are not able to give an exact date, however, we hope to have it completed sometime in January.”

Will DOL agree to annually notify bargaining unit employees that they have a right to join the Union? (DL) (49)

Response: OELMR has to be careful about advocating for or against union membership. They will respond to any specific situation in which management tells employees they don’t need to join the union. OELMR will think about how to word a notification to employees that they have a right to join the union.

Discussion on DOL management providing notice to all BUES about their rights to choose any work scheduled allowed by the collective bargaining agreement. (JD) (51)(This question was addressed by OASAM/Policy on 9/21 @ 9:00.)

Discussion on DOL management providing notice to all BUES about their rights to use flexi-place. (JD) (52)

Response: OELMR will come up with some wording for a notice.

The new core financial system does not allow the office managers to track the expenses against their budget. The OMA are worried that the monies will run out prior to the end of the fiscal year. Not knowing how much money is in the “tank” is an issue that needs to be resolved. (54) (This question will be addressed by OCFO on 10/19 @ 3:15 p.m.)

3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.

BREAK

3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

WH

Management Attendees: Tom Markey, Deputy Administrator for Program Operations; Patty Davidson, Director of Enforcement Strategy and Support; Ken Reinshuttle, Human Resources Specialist; Dorothy Thomas, Human Resources Specialist-OELMR.

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which

59

decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (102) (This question will be addressed by OASAM/OELMR).

WH has several offices called “satellite offices”. These offices are offices in which there is a supervisor and BUEs. The Contract allows the NCFLL to have an Article 6 steward in offices in which there is a supervisor. OASAM in at least one region has told the NCFLL that WH satellite offices cannot have a steward because they are just “extensions” of the District Office. Please discuss. (JD) (103)

Response: This question was addressed during the OASAM/General Meeting on Thursday October 21, 2010 at 9:30 am (agenda item #40).

People Time will not pay overtime unless each day has 8 hours charged. EXAMPLE: If an employee works 6 hours on Monday, 12 hours (with authorized OT) on Tuesday, 9 hours on both Wednesday and Thursday, and 10 hours (with authorized OT) on Friday, People Time will not pay the OT without the employee charging 2 hours of leave for Monday. The system will not allow the balancing of hours over the week (to equal 40) plus the OT. Please discuss what steps can be taken to correct this. (BT) (104) (This question was addressed by OASAM/Policy on 9/21 @ 9:00).

Follow up on the creation of Administrative positions in the District Offices. (PT) (105)

Response: Mr. Markey stated that the purpose of creating the Administrative position was to relieve District Directors with travel, web pars, and other administrative areas. This is a GS-9 position. Depending on the size of the District Office, the administrative person could work between 20 to 30 hours per week. We have targeted the disabled community in our recruiting efforts. At the present time, we only have two administrative persons on board. We are having problems in people making the certs. He stated that he is surprised of the problems. We are now under a modified hiring freeze, which we are trying to get some exemptions. We are going to have to increase our recruitment strategy which will include merit staffing and outside recruiting.

Discussion: VP Tracy asked about offices sharing the work of a person. Mr. Markey stated that is a possibility but he would like to try new recruitment strategies first.

Discuss the agency involvement with the DOL Call Center. What volume of calls and/or email do they handle and what is our evaluation of their service? Is there consideration for returning this work to within the DOL? Is there a deadline for therenewal of the contract or for the process of re-bidding? (PT) (106)

Response: Mr. Markey stated that Wage and Hour gets a fair number of calls from the Call Center that actually belong to another agency, such as OFCCP. Wage and Hour calls are actually referred from the Call Center to the appropriate District Office for handling. When the new Wage and Hour Telephone system is installed and operational, the plan is to divorce ourselves from the Call Center. Wage and Hour spends $3 million per year to participate in the Call Center.

60

Discussion: RS Laurie asked if Wage and Hour removes itself from the Call Center, will this translate into additional positions for Wage and Hour. Mr. Markey stated that we will have to see whether we will need additional staff. He stated that the new telephone will provide flexibility which will allow us to transfer calls to another office when call volumes are high in a given office. VP Tracy asked if the Call Center handles email. Ms. Davidson stated that they do and send the emails to the appropriate District Office.

VP Tracy asked if any survey/assessment has been made of the Call Center. Mr. Markey stated that he thinks that we have done some surveys. He stated that he will check on the surveys and share them with the NCFLL.

Action Ite m: Wage and Hour to provide the NCFLL with the following information concerning the Call Center: 1) number of calls and emails handled per year; 2) copies of customer survey results.

Response: Information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles. According to her email, “In FY 2010, the total number of calls to WHD was 464,735 and the number of emails was 79,232. Of those total phone calls and emails, 242,095 were referred to WHD. In FY 2009, the total number of calls to WHD was 521,112 and the number of emails was 77,735. Of those total phone calls and emails, 396,087 were referred to WHD.”

Resume discussion on the agency plan to implement a new phone system with recorded incoming calls and call monitoring capabilities. What are the legal authorities to record phone calls at the federal and state levels? What is the foreseeable impact of recorded calls on complainant cooperation? Will records of taped calls create broader discovery requests at litigation and how will the identities of cooperative employees be shielded? The Union requests pre-decisional involvement in the piloting of the system and we have a standing request to negotiate the system prior to implementation. (PT) (107)

Response: Dottie Thomas stated that prior to the meeting, VP Tracy withdrew the agenda item since there is a current bargaining request made by the NCFLL and efforts are being made to bargain this new system. VP Tracy confirmed withdrawing the agenda item.

Please provide an update on the status of the WHISARD Assessment project. (PT) (108)

Response: Mr. Markey stated that Wage and Hour is doing a large assessment of WHISARD, which has included participation and input by NCFLL representatives in the process. The contractors have taken the information received and is re-engineering the complaint intake module. Once the new complaint intake module is designed, it will

61

be inputted into WHISARD and they will move on to another module. He anticipates the entire process will take up to two years.

Discussion: VP Tracy stated that it is his understanding that once the initial review process is complete; the next phase would be to write the codes. Mr. Markey stated that you first have to develop the business rules and then the codes are written. He stated that the challenge is to fit all the different phases (business models) together.

Please discuss the availability of funding for WH BUES to take the Defensive Driving Course training. (NN) (109)

Response: Tom Markey asked two questions of clarification on the agenda item: First, if this is training given by a federal agency? Second, should this training be mandatory.

Discussion: VP Noland stated that the training was provided by the National Safety Council. She stated that the New Jersey District Office has traditionally offered this training to their Wage and Hour staff. The office has permitted their staff to take the training during duty time and the office has paid for it. The NCFLL stated that the training should not be mandatory. Mr. Markey stated that he will review this matter and have a response by our next LMR Meeting.

Action Item: Wage and Hour to provide a response to the NCFLL by the February 20111 National LMR Meeting on availability of funding for Wage and Hour Bargaining Unit Employees to take Defensive Driving Course training.

What is the current ratio of ADD’s to WHI’s? (DD) (110)

Response: Tom Markey stated that the current guidance is one ADD to eight WHI’s. He stated that the following ratios would apply: two ADD’s to 14 WHI’s; three ADD’s to 21 WHI’s; four ADD’s to 30 WHI’s.

Discussion: President DeMay referenced the Indianapolis District Office has 16 WHI’s and is hiring a third ADD. Mr. Markey stated that this is an anomaly. RS Laurie asked if the determination if the future ratio will be based on the overall staffing levels (WHI’s and support staff). Mr. Markey stated that he doesn’t want to make a hard and hard fast rule on this.

4:15 pm -5:15 pm

OCFO

Management Attendees: Karen Tekleberhan, Deputy Chief Financial Officer;Kenneth Bode, Acting Associate Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Financial Systems;Cynthia Jones, E-Gov Travel Manager ; Marella Turner, Administrative Officer

62

Recently bargaining unit employees with Job Corps in the Chicago and Philadelphia Regions experienced delays in getting travel vouchers paid due to problems with New Core/E² interface and certain line items in the Job Corps fiscal appropriation being converted from a positive line item to a negative line item for FY 2010. What assurances or precautions have been taken by OCFO to insure that this problem does not happen again? (DL) (27)

Response: Cynthia Jones stated that this was a problem in FY 2010 but it was fixed a few months ago. We should not have the problems with the FY 2011 codes.

Discussion: Ms. Jones asked if the NCFLL has heard of any new problems since the beginning of FY 2011. President DeMay stated that he has not heard of any problems but it is early in the fiscal year and some employees may have not traveled to identify any problems.

The new core financial system does not allow the office managers to track the expenses against their budget. The OMA are worried that the monies will run out prior to the end of the fiscal year. Not knowing how much money is in the “tank” is an issue that needs to be resolved. (54)

Response: See OCFO agenda item #57 for response.

As you know, Executive Order 13522 requires the pre-decisional involvement of Union officials in the initiatives of the Department. Please share a couple of issues for which decisions have not yet been made and discuss the manner in which the Union may be involved. (PT) (56) (This question will be addressed by OASAM/OELMR)

The new core financial system does not allow the office managers to track the expenses against their budget. The OMA are worried that the monies will run out prior to the end of the fiscal year. Not knowing how much money is in the “tank” is an issue that needs to be resolved. (ME) (57) Response: This problem has been corrected and agency budget office’s can now run the expense reports.

DOL employees were notified by email on September 28, 2010 that accounting codes for FY 2011 were now available within the EGov Travel System. Please discuss the reason(s) for delay in establishing these accounting codes in the system. (DD) (58)Response: The majority of codes were available by September 28, 20108 but the former ESA agency codes were not available. We had problems with the codes and got them corrected. We are handling any problems on a case by case basis.The NCFMS system can only handle one year of accounting codes at a time. At the end of each fiscal year, there is a major effort made to load NCFMS with the new codes. This was the first year that we had brand new codes.

63

Discussion on OCFO providing annual training to BUES on the E-2 Travel System. (JD) (59) Response: Cynthia Jones asked if the NCFLL has heard a need for E-2 training.

Discussion: resident DeMay stated that our folks don’t really know about the training and some travel infrequently and are not familiar with the system. Ms. Jones stated that the OCFO can send out an email next week to all DOL employees concerning E-2 training modules available. President DeMay suggested that a link to Labor Net E-2 training modules be included in the email. Ms. Jones stated that she can include the link in her email. Treasurer Wheeler asked the Carlson Wagonlit Help System and to make it user friendly.President DeMay asked about the TMC fee not being automatically included on the E-2 voucher. He stated that this has resulted in employees not claiming the TMC fee on their voucher. Ms. Jones stated that any employee who forgot to claim their TMC fees on their travel vouchers can file a separate local travel voucher to recoup these fees. President DeMay mentioned that he was told that TMC fees incurred on cancelled trip can be claimed on a future travel voucher. Ms. Jones stated that this information will be included on a Frequently Asked Questions document.

Action Item ; OCFO to send out a Department wide email during the week of October 25, 2010 about E-2, along with a link to the E-2 Travel Training site.

Response: The information requested was provided to the NCFLL in an email from Sheila Lyles with OELMR on 11/05/10. Ms. Lyles’ email contained the email below which was sent by Cynthia Jones with OCFO to all DOL employees on 10/29/10.The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented the Secure Flight program, which requires airlines passengers making travel reservations to provide their full name (as it appears on the identification document used when traveling), date of birth, and gender. TSA matches this information against government watch lists to: 1) Identify known and suspected terrorists; 2) Prevent individuals on the No Fly List from boarding an aircraft; 3) Identify individuals on the Selectee List for enhanced screening; 4) Facilitate passenger air travel; and 5) Protect individuals' privacy. After matching passenger information against government watch lists, Secure Flight transmits the matching results back to airlines.This email message serves as a reminder that Departmental travelers and/or travel arrangers must ensure that the EGov travel profiles of travelers are modified to include any required data. This process takes just a couple of minutes to complete, however it must be completed by the TSA-designated date of November 1, 2010. What information is required and where to enter it?The traveler’s full middle name must be included in the “name” field within the traveler’s EGov travel system (ETS) profile. Access ETS and go to My Profile. Click on Edit

64

Profile and enter the middle name. If a traveler does not have a middle name, leave the field blank. The Secure Flight Information that is needed in the GetThere system is the traveler’s gender, date of birth and redress number, if issued one by TSA. If there is no redress number leave this field blank. The GetThere system is a database that is used by the Department’s travel agency, Carlson Wagonlit to make and track airline reservations. GetThere is automatically accessed when you click on Edit Travel Preferences which is also found in E2 by selecting the My Profile tab. Once you enter travel preferences and select the ‘Personal Information’ prompts, you can enter the required information, i.e. gender, date of birth, and redress number. Please remember to click ‘SAVE’ after you’ve entered the information. The ‘SAVE’ prompt is found at the bottom of the page in a green box. Note about Redress Numbers: Most DOL travelers will not have a Redress number. A redress number is issued by the TSA only if a traveler has experienced difficulties obtaining reservations/boarding planes due to TSA security measures and has requested that the TSA review their status.If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the EGov travel help desk at [email protected]

People Time will not pay overtime unless each day has 8 hours charged. EXAMPLE: If an employee works 6 hours on Monday, 12 hours (with authorized OT) on Tuesday, 9 hours on both Wednesday and Thursday, and 10 hours (with authorized OT) on Friday, People Time will not pay the OT without the employee charging 2 hours of leave for Monday. The system will not allow the balancing of hours over the week (to equal 40) plus the OT. Please discuss what steps can be taken to correct this. (BT) (104)

Response: See response provided in the OASAM/General Meeting on Thursday 10/21/10 at 9:30 am.

LATE ENTRY

The People Time system is not letting employees use the comp time they have earned within the same pay period. In other words, if an employee earns comp time on a day early in the pay period and attempts to use that same comp time later in the same pay period the People Time system will not allow it. Discuss a workaround to this system glitch. (PT) (This question was addressed by OASAM/Policy on 10/21 @ 9:00).

65

mailto:[email protected]

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS · Web viewLinguistic Services (140 languages)…When a...

Documents

Transcript of NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS · Web viewLinguistic Services (140 languages)…When a...