Five federal-employee unions announced yesterday that they will file a lawsuit next week in U.S. District Court challenging parts of the Defense Department's new personnel system.
The unions contend that Pentagon officials went against federal law by refusing to adequately consult with employees' representatives in developing the sections on labor-management issues. They also say that the National Security Personnel System would gut collective bargaining in violation of federal law.
"Instead of working with the longstanding representatives of the military's loyal civilian employees, the Pentagon apparently would rather duke this out in federal court," John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a statement.
The other unions joining the suit include the Association of Civilian Technicians, the Laborers' International Union, the National Association of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees. Together, the five unions have about 250,000 members among the 750,000 civilian workers at the Defense Department, said Mark Roth, AFGE's general counsel.
Officials at the Pentagon and the Office of Personnel Management have defended the development of the system, saying it was a collaborative process that included a variety of viewpoints, including those of the unions.
Navy Secretary Gordon R. England, who oversaw the effort, noted yesterday that officials had held more than 100 town-hall-style meetings with employees and had consulted more than 50 focus groups. Administration officials had also held several meetings with representatives of more than 40 labor groups to hear concerns and gather ideas for designing the system, officials said.
Acting OPM Director Dan G. Blair said unions "are assured the right to organize. Their right to exist is not infringed at all. The process ensures collaboration and cooperation."
Congress gave the Pentagon the authority to rewrite its personnel rules in 2003 after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that the current system is outdated, treats high-achieving employees no better than poor performers, and greatly limits the department's ability to fight global terrorism. Congress had given similar authority to the Department of Homeland Security a year earlier, and last month DHS officials unveiled their new system, which brought similar criticism -- and a lawsuit -- from employee unions.
In a news briefing yesterday, England said the new system would hold managers and employees more accountable for their performance, while giving the department more power over hiring, pay and the deployment of workers.
"We need to be able to pull resources and assign people. We need to be able to respond quickly to the threats we face today," he said. "If we want to hire specialty people today, it's a very lengthy process. This is a much more flexible and agile system."
England said the new system would do nothing to speed up the awarding of security clearances, a significant obstacle to hiring that can often take applicants more than a year to overcome.
The new work rules would replace the General Schedule with a system of "pay bands," or broad salary ranges attached to jobs newly grouped by occupation and skill level. Pay raises would be linked to annual job evaluations.
The Pentagon will create an internal labor relations board controlled by the defense secretary to resolve labor-management disputes. Employees who believe they have been unfairly disciplined could still seek redress before the independent Merit Systems Protection Board. But it would be harder for the board to mitigate punishments, and Pentagon officials would have new power to reject the decisions of administrative law judges.
The department will publish in the Federal Register on Monday details of the new system, which would be phased in over four years. Labor relations changes would begin department-wide this summer. And officials hope to move as many as 60,000 employees to the new job-evaluation system as early as July.
Roth, the AFGE official, said the unions' lawsuit, if successful, could force changes only in the labor relations component.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said yesterday that he is "deeply disappointed by the DOD plan."
"The proposal imposes excessive limits on collective bargaining which are not necessary to maintain the critical mission of the department," he said in a statement. "It changes the appeals process to interfere with employees' rights to due process. And it contains unduly vague and untested pay and performance provisions."
Staff writer Eric Yoder contributed to this report.
