Source: https://www.compliance.gov/sites/default/files/rulemaking/021605_veoa.htm
Timestamp: 2018-01-20 14:47:04
Document Index: 670933573

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3309', '§ 3311', '§ 3512', '§ 3310', '§1316', '§1', '§3503', '§ 1316', '§ 732', '§ 2108', '§ 2108', '§ 2108', '§ 3309', '§ 12101', '§1302', '§ 3309', '§ 3309', '§ 3311', '§ 337', '§ 3502', '§ 351', '§ 351', '§ 351', '§ 3502', '§ 351', '§ 3502', '§3502', '§ 3502', '§ 3502', '§ 4301', '§ 4301', '§ 3502', '§ 2101', '§ 1302', '§ 3504', '§ 12101', '§ 1302', '§ 3503', '§ 3503', '§ 293', '§ 297', '§ 351', '§ 351', '§ 1602', '§ 3502', '§ 3502', '§ 351', '§ 1384', '§ 2108', '§ 2108', '§ 2108', '§2102', '§ 3309', '§2108', '§ 12101', '§ 1302', '§ 3501', '§ 2108', '§ 12101', '§ 1302', '§ 12101', '§ 1302', '§ 2108']

NEW PROPOSED REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN SUBSTANTIVE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS FOR VETERANS, AS REQUIRED BY 2 U.S.C. 1316a, THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED (CAA).
The VEOA also makes applicable to the Legislative Branch certain statutory preferences in hiring. In the hiring process, a preference eligible individual who is tested or otherwise numerically evaluated for a position is entitled to have either 5 or 10 points added to his/her score, depending on his/her military service, or disabling condition. 5 U.S.C. § 3309. Where experience is a qualifying element for a job, a preference eligible individual is entitled to credit for having relevant experience in the military or in various civil activities. 5 U.S.C. § 3311. Where physical requirements (age, height, weight) are a qualifying element for a position, preference eligible individuals (including those who are disabled) may obtain a waiver of such requirements in certain circumstances. 5 U.S.C. § 3512.
For certain positions (guards, elevator operators, messengers, custodians), only preference eligible individuals may be considered for hiring so long as such individuals are available. 5 U.S.C. § 3310. (These statutory provisions on hiring in the Executive Branch apply specifically to the competitive service; this point will be discussed further below.)
How are substantive regulations proposed and approved under the CAA? Pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, the procedure for promulgating such substantive regulations requires that: (1) the Board of Directors adopt proposed substantive regulations and publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Congressional Record; (2) there be a comment period of at least 30 days after the date of publication of the general notice of proposed rulemaking; (3) after consideration of comments by the Board of Directors, that the Board adopt regulations and transmit notice of such action together with the regulations and a recommendation regarding the method for Congressional approval of the regulations to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record; (4) committee referral and action on the proposed regulations by resolution in each House, concurrent resolution, or by joint resolution; and (5) final publication of the approved regulations in the Congressional Record, with an effective date prescribed in the final publication. For more detail, please reference the text of 2 U.S.C. 1384. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is step (1) of the outline set forth above.
Are these proposed regulations also recommended by the Office of Compliance’s Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives, and the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate? As required by section 304(b)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1), the substance of these regulations is also recommended by the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives and the Acting Deputy Executive Director for the Senate.
How are the regulations being proposed in this Notice different from those regulations which the Board previously proposed? In the period since the initial proposed regulations were issued by the Board of Directors and commented upon by various stakeholders, the Office of Compliance has engaged in extensive informal discussions with various stakeholders across Congress and the Legislative Branch, in an effort to ascertain how best to effect the basic purposes of veterans’ employment rights in the Legislative Branch.
After careful consultation and deliberation, the Board is issuing new proposed regulations which differ in many respects from the initial proposed regulations. The new approach is responsive to the clear statutory mandate contained in the VEOA, and to various Comments regarding the initial proposed regulations. This approach also applies insights gained from the informal discussions with stakeholders.
The Board has decided to apply the plain language of the statutory provisions to all covered employees in the Legislative Branch. By doing so, the Board avoids what commenting employing offices styled as the "anomaly" of complicated regulations which would practically apply to no employees, an anomaly which not only poorly served the clear Congressional intent that protections "shall apply to covered employees," but which also created confusion for the employing offices.
Not only is application of these rights to all covered employees compelled by the plain language of the statute, the legislative history of the VEOA also clearly indicates that the principles of veterans' preference protections must be applied in the Legislative Branch. The authoritative report of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs (Senate Report 105-340, pages 15 & 17), recognized that the competitive service did not exist in the Legislative Branch, and that 2 U.S.C. 1316a did not require the establishment of such a competitive service. Nonetheless, the Committee noted that veterans' preference principles should be incorporated into the Legislative Branch personnel systems.
For these reasons, the Board is persuaded that Congress, in enacting the VEOA's extension of veterans' employment rights to the Legislative Branch, intended a broad application to all CAA covered employees, except for the staff of those employing offices in the House of Representatives and the Senate which Congress specifically excluded from coverage in section 206a(5) of the CAA (2 U.S.C. §1316a(5)).This result is faithful to the statutory language. Furthermore, the Board has concluded, for the reasons stated above, that the most relevant substantive Executive Branch OPM regulations are at times inapposite to a meaningful implementation of the VEOA in the Legislative Branch, such that a modification of the regulations is necessary for the effective implementation of the rights and protections under the VEOA. As a result, the Office is proposing regulations that reflect the principles of the veterans' preference laws, as discussed by the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, without linking such coverage to employees or positions with competitive service status.
Furthermore, the Board has also taken note of the legislative history suggesting that employing offices with employees covered by the VEOA should create systems incorporating these veterans' preference principles:
What is the approach taken by these revamped proposed substantive regulations? The Board has taken great heed to avoid the intricate, OPM-like regulations that formed the basis for its first proposed regulations. Under the current proposed regulations, employing offices will retain their wide latitude, not similarly enjoyed by many employing agencies in the Executive Branch, to devise and administer their own unique and often flexible personnel systems. However, employing offices with covered employees must incorporate into these individual personnel systems the basic veterans' preference protections under the specific statutory mandate that Congress issued in the VEOA, and they must carry out the administration of these veterans' preference provisions in a manner consistent with the Board's commitment to promoting administrative transparency and accountability.
Under this approach, employing offices with the specified covered employees must meet the requirements contained in the statutory mandate of the VEOA, but need not necessarily adopt any of the trappings of an OPM-like personnel system. Thus, should such an employing office choose to administer numeric evaluations of applicants for a position, it must add to a preference eligible's evaluation the points called for in the veterans' preference statutes. If it does not numerically evaluate applicants, it must determine how it will factor veterans' preference status into its employee evaluations and hiring decisions at a level commensurate with the statutory directive. Similarly, should an employing office currently have a policy of placing covered employees who may be potentially subject to a reduction in force on a retention register, it must rank said employees taking into account the directives of the veterans' preference statute. Should an employing office elect not to keep formal retention registers, nothing in these regulations requires it to start doing so. It still must, however, follow the statutory mandate to provide certain veterans' preferences in the course of a reduction in force that affects employees covered by the VEOA.
The goal of preserving employing office autonomy in fashioning personnel systems has further compelled the Board to minimize the impact of these proposed regulations on employment decisions not directly involving preference eligibles. Thus, unlike the initial proposed regulations, should an employing office properly determine that no preference eligibles are qualified applicants, or that no preference eligibles are subject to a RIF, these proposed regulations are designed so as not to govern the employment decisions taken by the employing office. By allowing for such employing office autonomy, the Board hopes to allay the concerns of some of the employing offices, expressed in the initial Comments, that a "morass" of intricate regulations would apply to decisions that did not affect preference eligibles. (One isolated, but necessary exception to this approach limiting the effect of the regulations to personnel actions involving preference eligibles is proposed §1.115, governing the transfer of functions between one employing office and another, and the replacement of one employing office by another. This section provides protections for all covered employees, as the term is defined and limited in the VEOA, including non-preference eligibles. The clear statutory language of 5 U.S.C. §3503 (applying to both the competitive and excepted services) commands this result. Congress chose to include this broad statutory provision in the set of provisions made applicable to the Legislative Branch in the VEOA.)
The overall discretion and autonomy reserved to employing offices to administer veterans' preference protections within the context of their personnel systems comes with a responsibility on the part of the employing offices to provide all applicants for covered positions and all covered employees with certain notice and informational rights, as discussed below. This is to ensure that employing offices are equipped with all information necessary to determine and administer veterans' preference eligibility and that such applicants and employees are properly informed of how their employing office has chosen to give life to the veterans' preference protections.
In proposing these regulations, the Board has sought to remain faithful to the explicit statutory language of the VEOA. In some cases, we have been guided by OPM veterans' preference implementing regulations. In many cases, “for good cause shown,” we have not adopted the OPM regulations so as to tailor simpler and more streamlined regulations. We have issued proposed regulations based on the direct statutory language whenever possible, reserving implementation to the individual employing offices, who then are charged with crafting their own processes and procedures for integrating veterans' preference protections within their personnel systems.
Therefore, in accord with 2 U.S.C.1316a(4)(B), which mandates that “the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated . . . a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section,” these proposed regulations may not track the most relevant substantive regulations applicable with respect to the Executive Branch. However, the proposed regulations endeavor, to the maximum practical extent, to effect the veterans' preference principles that Congress made applicable to the Legislative Branch through section 206a(2) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. § 1316a(2).
What responsibilities would employing offices have in effectively implementing these regulations? The Board is charging the employing offices with the responsibility of duly factoring the veterans' preference principles into their individualized hiring and retention processes. We will require that such measures be substantive and verifiable. Otherwise, VEOA implementation would be illusory and the Office’s remedial responsibility under 2 U.S.C.1316a(3) might be compromised.
Therefore, the proposed regulations would require that all employing offices with covered employees or seeking applicants for covered positions develop a written program, within 120 days of the Congressional approval of the regulations, setting forth each employing office's modality for effecting the veterans' preference principles in its hiring and retention systems. These programs would demonstrate each employing office's efforts to comply with the VEOA. However, technical promulgation of such procedures does not per se relieve an employing office of substantive compliance with the VEOA.
Are there substantive differences in the proposed regulations for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the other employing offices? No. The Board of Directors has identified no “good cause” for varying the text of these regulations. Therefore, if these proposed regulations are approved as proposed, there will be one text applicable to all employing offices and covered employees.
Are these proposed substantive regulations available to persons with disabilities in an alternate format? This Notice of Proposed Regulations is available on the Office of Compliance web site, www. compliance. gov, which is compliant with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794d. This Notice can also be made available in large print or Braille. Requests for this Notice in an alternative format should be made to: Alma Candelaria, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Compliance, 110 2nd Street, S.E., Room LA-200, Washington, D.C. 20540; 202-724-9226; TDD: 202-426-1912; FAX: 202-426-1913.
1.101 Purpose and scope. This section clarifies that the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the principles of the veterans' preference laws are integrated into the employing offices' existing employment and retention policies and processes, as per the explicit statutory mandate contained in the VEOA. Additionally, through these regulations, the Board seeks to fulfill its goal of achieving transparency in the application of veterans' preference in covered appointment and retention decisions.
Finally, it is noted that nothing in these regulations shall be construed to require an employing office to reduce any existing veterans' preference rights and protections that it may currently afford to preference eligible individuals. Any employing agencies that currently provide greater veterans' preferences than required by these regulations may retain them. Note also that, while the VEOA does not directly cover the GAO, GPO, or Library of Congress, should Congress extend Board jurisdiction over any of these entities in the future, it should take their existing veterans' preference policies into account, which may be based on independent statutory mandates. Note, for example, that 31 U.S.C. § 732(h)(1) already mandates that the GAO must afford veterans' preferences (largely similar to those in subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 5 U.S.C.).
1.102 General definitions. This section provides straightforward definitions of key terms referred to in the regulations. Several of the definitions are derived from the statutory provisions made applicable via the VEOA, including "veteran," from 5 U.S.C. § 2108(1), "disabled veteran" from 5 U.S.C. § 2108(2), and "preference eligible" from 5 U.S.C. § 2108(3). It also contains several other definitions included for explanatory purposes.
The term "qualified applicant," while not directly originating in the text of U.S.C. Title V, is used to capture the principle in 5 U.S.C. § 3309 that only a preference eligible applicant who has received a passing grade in an examination or evaluation for entrance into the competitive service need receive additional points accorded to his or her application (except for certain "restricted" positions, discussed below). "Qualified applicant" is borrowed from the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA," 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) as applied by section 102(a)(3) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. §1302(a)(3). The ADA's reference to "requisite skill, experience, education and other minimum job-related requirements" has been shortened to "requisite minimum job-related requirements," as not every job may require a particular level of acquired skill, experience, or education.
As will be discussed further, we are not requiring an employing office to establish any particular prerequisites or type of evaluation or examination system for applicants. Instead, the term "qualified applicant" serves as a means of implementing the statutory mandate that only preference eligible applicants with "passing scores" receive preference in the hiring process in the context of appointment processes that do not involve "scoring" or similar numeric evaluation.
1.105 Responsibility for administration of veterans' preference. This section clarifies that employing offices have responsibility for administering veterans' preference, within the parameters of the VEOA and these regulations.
1.106 Procedures for bringing claims under the VEOA. This section establishes the procedures for contesting an adverse determination.
We have based our definitions of the restricted position terms "guards," "elevator operators," "custodians," and "messengers," upon the definitions employed in the veterans' preference context by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in its "Delegated Examining Operations Handbook." See http://www.opm.gov/deu/Handbook_2003. The definitions of custodian and messenger have been modified to include a "primary duty" requirement, to allow the performance of some custodial or messenger duties in positions having other primary duties without transforming those positions into restricted positions.
1.108 Veterans' preference in appointments to non-restricted covered positions. This section clarifies that preference eligible status is an affirmative factor in the hiring process for covered positions. The requirement that preference eligible status be applied as an "affirmative factor" is derived from the directive of the VEOA that the underlying principles of the veterans' preference laws be applied within the Legislative Branch.
Where an employing office assigns points to applicants competing for appointment to a covered position, it should add commensurate points for veterans' preference eligible applicants consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 3309, one of the sections made applicable to the Legislative Branch by the VEOA. Should the office choose not to conduct formal evaluations on a point scale, it must apply veterans' preference as an affirmative factor, to a degree consistent with the level of preference applied in 5 U.S.C. § 3309.
In no way does this require the creation of any particular type of system of examining or evaluating applicants, and an employing office may properly choose to not assign points at all to applications for covered positions. Rather, this regulation merely states that, whatever system the employing office uses to choose among qualified applicants for a covered position, it must accord a level of preference to preference eligible qualified applicants consistent with the point system indicated in the statute. Thus, the preference must be comparable to affording an additional 5 or 10 points (depending on the status of the preference eligible) on a 100 point scale to qualified applicants, while understanding that under such a point system the applicant must have attained at least 70 points to be considered qualified.(OPM provides a scale for converting other point scales (5 point, 10 point, 25 point, etc.) to a 100-point scale.)
Sec. 3311. Preference eligibles; examinations; crediting experience
In examinations for the competitive service in which experience
is an element of qualification, a preference eligible is entitled
to credit -
(1) for service in the armed forces when his employment in a
similar vocation to that for which examined was interrupted by
(2) for all experience material to the position for which
examined, including experience gained in religious, civic,
welfare, service, and organizational activities, regardless of
whether he received pay therefor.
5 U.S.C. § 3311.
5 CFR § 337.101(c). Section 1.109 does not require an employing office to consider experience as an element of qualification, but only requires that preference eligibles be afforded credit for certain experience if the employing office chooses to do so. Also, section 1.109 does not preclude an employing office from granting credit for experience to non-preference eligibles, so long as the credit afforded preference eligibles complies with the VEOA. Note also that section 1.109 of these proposed regulations applies equally to restricted and non-restricted positions.
In keeping with our new approach to the implementation of the VEOA, these regulations do not impose a requirement that an employing office create or maintain OPM-like retention registers but instead provide a framework for determining groups of "competing employees" for purposes of applying retention preferences as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 3502(c). In this respect, the Board has determined that several of the terms in the OPM regulations may be used to implement the concept of "competing employees" in the Legislative Branch without imposing Executive Branch personnel practices or systems: generally, "competing covered employees" are the covered employees within a particular "position classification or job classification," at or within a particular "competitive area".
The definition of "position classification or job classification" is derived from OPM's basic definition of "competitive level" in 5 CFR § 351.403(a)(1). The remaining regulations in 5 CFR § 351.403(a)(2)-(4), (b)(1)-(5) and (c)(1)-(4) prescribe the manner in which an Executive Branch agency may determine a covered employee's competitive level. While some of these rules could be adopted in the Legislative Branch, others are clearly inapplicable. The Board has decided not to adopt these portions of the OPM regulations in order to provide employing offices with a great amount of flexibility in determining an employee's "position classification or job classification". This is in keeping with our understanding that the personnel systems used by employing offices within the Legislative Branch vary significantly from those used in the Executive Branch. This flexibility is, of course, subject to the understanding that such determinations may not be manipulated in order to avoid the employing office's obligations under the VEOA.
The definition of "competitive area" more closely tracks OPM's definition of the same term in 5 CFR § 351.402. We note that the OPM regulations define "competitive area" in terms of an agency's "organizational units" and "geographical locations". The Board is not adopting OPM definitions or descriptions of these terms, but will allow employing offices flexibility in applying these concepts to their own organizational structure. The Board has retained the OPM requirement that the minimum competitive area be a department or subdivision "under separate administration". In this respect, "separate administration" is not considered to require that the administration of a proposed competitive area has final authority to hire and fire but that it has the authority to administer the day to day operations of the department or subdivision in question.
The OPM regulations incorporate the term "tenure" in their definition of "competitive group." We have used the term in our definition of "position classification or job classification" because the statutory language in 5 U.S.C. § 3502 identifies "tenure" as a factor that will override veterans' preference in determining employee retention in a reduction in force. However, we have not adopted OPM's definition of tenure, as it is tied to Executive Branch service classifications that do not exist in the Legislative Branch. See 5 CFR 351.501. Instead, the use of the term "tenure" in these definitions refers only to the type of appointment. For example, an employing office may choose to make "tenure" distinctions between permanent and temporary employees, probationary and non-probationary employees, etc. By referring to “permanent” positions, we are referring to jobs that are not limited in advance to a specific temporal duration. Nothing in these Comments and Regulations is intended to address the “at-will” status of any covered position.
The Chief Counsel for the Senate noted, in her Comments to the prior proposed regulations, that the Senate does not employ the concept of "tenure". If an employing office chooses not to make such distinctions, nothing in these regulations requires it to do so. If the office does, that is one of the factors in the constitution of the "position classifications or job classifications". Again, the Board notes that an employing office should not manipulate the creation of tenure so as to avoid its obligations under the VEOA.
We have also included a definition of "undue interruption" that is taken directly from the definition of the same term in the OPM regulations, 5 CFR § 351.203. The term is used in determining whether various jobs should be included within the same "position classification" or "job classification," and is meant to strike a balance between the interests of employing offices in retaining employees who will be able to perform the jobs remaining after a reduction in force, and the interests of preference eligibles whose jobs are being eliminated in remaining employed. OPM struck this balance by generally suggesting that an employee should be able to perform or "complete" required work within 90 days of being placed in the position, and the Board considers this time period to be appropriate in the Legislative Branch as well. For example, this protection against "undue interruption" would apply if a preference eligible would have to complete a training program of more than 90 days in order to safely and efficiently perform the covered position to which he or she would otherwise be transferred as a result of a RIF. Finally, we note that, since "undue interruption" is an affirmative defense, an employing office has the burden of raising it and proving that an employee may not perform work without "undue interruption" by objectively quantifiable evidence.
1.112 Application of reductions in force to veterans' preference eligibles. The crux of this regulation derives from 5 U.S.C. § 3502(c), which provides:
An employee who is entitled to retention preference and whose performance has not been rated unacceptable under a performance appraisal system implemented under chapter 43 of this title is entitled to be retained in preference to other competing employees. (Emphasis added.)
This provision is the statutory lynchpin underlying veterans' preferences in RIF's. The statutory language in section 3502(c) above in effect requires the employing office to terminate covered employees subject to a RIF in inverse order of their veterans' preference status, within the appropriate group of covered employees with similar jobs, so long as the employees' performance has not been rated unacceptable. Under section 3502(c), a preference eligible covered employee (without an unacceptable performance appraisal) must be retained in preference to non-preference eligibles -- even if the other covered employees in the group in fact have greater length of service or more favorable performance evaluations.
Case law has also made abundantly clear that section 3502(c) requires that this preference eligible status “trumps” the “due effect” given to length of service and performance. Courts have interpreted the separate requirement under section 3502(a) to give “due effect” to these four enumerated factors as being relevant to retention determinations between two preference eligibles, or between two non-preference eligibles - and not relevant to retention determinations between a preference eligible and a non-preference eligible. Hilton v. Sullivan, 334 U.S. 323, 335, 336 (1948). The Board has chosen not to explicitly require that length of service or performance or efficiency evaluations be taken into account during RIF’s - only that, if they are, veterans’ preference remains the controlling factor in making retention decisions within “position or job classifications” in a competitive area (assuming other appropriate requirements are also met).
Federal courts have interpreted the present statutory language of section 3502(c) as providing preference eligible employees with an "absolute preference," although only within the confines of their competing group. Dodd v. TWA, 770 F. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also McKee v. TWA, 1999 LEXIS 25663 at *5 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (unpublished). Additionally, the source of this key language in §3502(c), the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944 (in turn deriving from a series of historical statutes and executive orders, commencing in 1865), and the legislative history of this Act indicate that the section 3502(c) predecessor language was considered the “heart of the section”. Hilton v. Sullivan, 334 U.S. 323, 338 (1948). To this effect, courts have interpreted § 3502(c) (or its predecessor under the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944) as overriding such factors as length of service when considering retention standing. Hilton v. Sullivan, 334 U.S. at 335, 336, 339 (noting that "Congress passed the bill with full knowledge that the long standing absolute retention preference of veterans would be embodied in the Act;" Elder v. Brannan, 341 U.S. 277, 285 (1951). Thus, courts have interpreted section 3502(c) as requiring preference to be given to a minimally qualified preference eligible, within his or her competing group, regardless of the preference eligible's length of service or performance in comparison to non-preference eligibles.
Another qualification on the veterans' preference as a "controlling factor" is that the preference eligible employee's performance must not have been rated "unacceptable." While 5 U.S.C. § 3502(c) contains a reference to performance appraisal systems implemented under 5 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., we are not requiring employing offices to implement a performance appraisal system following 5 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. An employing office may continue to use its own methods for evaluating covered employees and appraising performance, and need not adopt any formal policy regarding performance appraisal. However, the Board notes that employing offices should not manipulate performance appraisals or evaluations so as to avoid obligations under the VEOA.
Another significant qualification on this regulation is that it only governs retention decisions in so far as they affect preference eligible covered employees. In no way does it govern decisions that do not affect preference eligible covered employees; in such cases, an employing office is free to make whatever determinations it so chooses, provided that these determinations are consistent with any other applicable law, and are not used to avoid responsibilities imposed by the VEOA. (Of course, an employing office with covered employees must disseminate information regarding its VEOA policy to covered employees, so as to allow for self-identification of preference eligibles. Furthermore, the notice required by section 1.120 of these regulations will allow covered employees who have not been identified as preference eligibles to assert that status before the RIF becomes effective.) Nor does the regulation require the keeping of formal retention registers, as OPM (and these regulations, as initially proposed) generally requires. However, an employing office must preserve any records kept or made regarding these retention decisions, as detailed in Subpart E of these proposed regulations.
Note also that the Board has included the provision that a preference eligible covered employee who is a "disabled veteran" under section 1.102(h) above, who has a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more, and whose performance has not been rated unacceptable by an employing office is entitled to be retained in preference to other preference eligibles. This provision derives from 5 U.S.C. § 3502(b), which provides a higher level of preference to certain disabled preference eligibles with regard to other preference eligibles.
Finally, the Board notes that this section does not relieve an employing office of any greater obligation it may be subject to pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.) as applied by section 102(a)(9) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(9), which would of course apply to all employees covered by the CAA, not only to preference eligible employees covered by the VEOA.
1.114 Waiver of physical requirements - retention. This provision closely follows 5 U.S.C. § 3504, one of the sections made applicable to the Legislative Branch by the VEOA, requiring that, when making decisions regarding employee retention during a RIF, an employing office must waive physical requirements for a job for preference eligibles in certain specified circumstances. As discussed in the Comments to section 1.110, nothing in this regulation relieves an employing office of any greater obligation it may have pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) as applied by section 102(a)(3) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(3).
1.116 Transfer of functions. The language in this section derives from 5 U.S.C. § 3503, one of the sections made applicable to the Legislative Branch by the VEOA, requiring covered employees to be transferred to another employing office in the event of a transfer of functions from one employing office to the other, or in the event of the replacement of one employing office by another employing office. The Board expects that employing offices shall coordinate any such transfers in a way that respects both the requirements of this regulation and, to the greatest extent possible, the employing offices' own personnel systems and policies. This section is one of the rare instances where an employing office must follow the regulation even in the event that the personnel action taken does not involve any preference eligible covered employees; however, the clear statutory language of 5 U.S.C. § 3503 requires such a result.
Employees and employing offices are reminded that the definition of “covered employee” in these proposed regulations does not include employees appointed by a Member of Congress, a committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, or a joint committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate. See proposed regulation 1.102(f)(bb). Therefore, proposed regulation 1.116 will not apply to any such employees affected by the election of new Members of Congress or the transfer of jurisdiction from one committee to another.
We note that, of the six sections in this Subpart, only section 1.120 derives directly from statutory language. The other sections are borrowed from various other employment statutes, and are promulgated pursuant to the authority granted the Board by section 4(c)(4)(A) of the VEOA because they are considered necessary to the implementation of the VEOA. For example, the informational regulations in sections 1.120 and 1.121 are derived from informational regulations promulgated under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides employers with some flexibility in determining how the FMLA will be implemented within their own workforce. The Board is strongly committed to transparency as a policy matter. Moreover, for the VEOA rights to become meaningful, applicants for covered positions and covered employees will have to participate in ensuring that this system works properly, since employing offices are permitted to have flexibility in determining their policies, and the Board will not be taking the same active role in policing the veterans' preference requirements that OPM takes in the Executive Branch.
We also note that while this approach differs from OPM's, it reflects the far greater flexibility that employing offices have to tailor substantive requirements to their existing personnel systems and imposes less burdensome obligations on employing offices than that which is imposed on executive agencies: under our regulatory approach, employing offices will have reduced procedural burdens in that they will not be subject to the more detailed requirements of keeping formal retention registers, to the more highly regulated requirements regarding employee access to files (see e.g., 5 CFR § 293.101 et seq., 5 CFR § 297.101 et seq., and 5 CFR § 351.505(b)), or to examining or evaluating applicants on a 100-point scale, seeking prior OPM approval of RIF's, etc.
Section 1.116 Adoption of veterans' preference policy. As noted at the outset of these Comments, the regulations will require each employing office that employs one or more covered employees or seeks applicants for covered positions to develop, within 120 days of the Congressional approval of the regulations, a written program or policy setting forth that employing office's methods for implementing the VEOA's veterans' preference principles in the employing office's hiring and retention systems. Employing offices that have no employees covered by the VEOA are not required to adopt such a policy or program.
Because these regulations afford the employing offices a great amount of flexibility in determining how to implement veterans' preference within their own personnel systems, it is imperative that the methods chosen by the employing offices be reduced to writing and disseminated to covered applicants and employees. This will further the goals of accountability and transparency, as well as consistency in the application of the employing office's veterans' preference procedures. An existing policy may be amended or replaced by the employing office from time to time, as it deems necessary or appropriate to meet changing personnel practices and needs. We note, however, that the employing office's policy or program will at all times remain subject to the requirements of the VEOA and these regulations. Accordingly, while the adoption of a policy or program will demonstrate the employing office's efforts to comply with the VEOA, it will not relieve an employing office of substantive compliance with the VEOA.
Sections 1.117 Preservation of records kept or made. The requirements set forth in this section are derived from OPM regulations regarding retention of RIF records, 5 CFR § 351.505, and EEOC regulations regarding the preservation of personnel and employment records kept or made by employers, 29 CFR § 1602.14. This section requires that relevant records be retained for one year from the date of the making of the record or the date of the personnel action involved or, if later, one year from the date on which the applicant or employee is notified of the personnel action. In addition, where a claim has been brought under section 401 of the CAA against an employing office under the VEOA, the respondent employing office must preserve all personnel records relevant to the claim until final disposition of the claim.
Section 1.118 Dissemination of veterans' preference policies to applicants for covered positions. Section 1.118 requires that employing offices must furnish information to applicants for covered positions before appointment decisions are made. Before these decisions are made, it is important that applicants be given the opportunity to self-identify themselves as preference eligibles, and that they receive information regarding the employing office's policies and procedures for implementing the VEOA, in order to ensure that they are aware of the VEOA obligations that may apply to their situation. Accordingly, the regulations require that information regarding the employing office's policies and procedures for implementing the VEOA in appointments be furnished to applicants at various stages when the employing office is hiring into covered positions. We note that inviting applicants to voluntarily self-identify as a disabled veteran for purposes of the application of an employing office’s veterans’ preference policies, as outlined in the proposed regulation, is consistent with the EEOC’s ADA Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations (EEOC Oct. 10, 1995).
This requirement does not prevent an employing office from appropriately modifying its veterans' preference policies when it sees fit to do so, but is intended to ensure that applicants will be made aware of the employing office's then-current policies and procedures. The requirement that an employing office allow applicants a "reasonable time" to provide information regarding their veterans' preference status is intentionally flexible. If an employing office must fill a covered position within a matter of days, one working day may be a "reasonable time" for submission of the information. However, if the employing office's appointment process is more prolonged, more time should be allowed.
Sections 1.119 and 1.120 Dissemination of information of veterans' preference policies to covered employees, and notice requirements applicable in RIFs. It is also important that covered employees receive information regarding the employing office's policies and procedures for implementing the VEOA in connection with RIFs, in order to ensure that they are aware of the VEOA obligations that may apply to that situation. Accordingly, section 1.119 requires that information regarding the employing office's policies and procedures for implementing the VEOA in appointments be disseminated through employee handbooks, if the employing office has covered employees and ordinarily distributes such handbooks to those employees, or through any other written policy or manual that the employing office may distribute to covered employees concerning their employee rights or reductions in force.
The notice requirements attendant to a RIF are set out separately in section 1.120 of the regulations. These regulations derive from the express statutory language in 5 USC § 3502(d) and (e), which have been applied to the Legislative Branch by the VEOA. The language of section 3502(d) and (e) has been modified in section 1.120 to be consistent with the terms and approach used in the rest of these regulations. Among other changes, section 1.120 refers to "covered employees" and the provision in 5 U.S.C. § 3502(e) that the "President" may shorten the 60 day advance notice period to 30 days has been changed to the "director of the employing agency." Additionally, the provision regarding Job Training Partnership Act notice has been omitted. The requirement to inform the employee of the place where he or she may inspect regulations and records pertaining to this case derives from 5 CFR § 351.802(a)(3).
The statutory language requiring notice of "the employee's ranking relative to other competing employees, and how that ranking was determined" has been modified to require that the notice state whether the covered employee is preference eligible and that the notice separately state the "retention status" (i.e., whether the employee will be retained or not) and preference eligibility of the other covered employees in the same job or position classification within the covered employee's competitive area. The Board is not requiring the keeping of retention registers or the ranking of employees within a job or position classification affected by a RIF. However, the statutory language clearly compels employing offices to provide employees who will be adversely affected by a reduction in force with advance notice of how and why the agency decided to subject that particular employee to the reduction in force. At a minimum, this includes whether the affected employee has preference eligible status, and an objective indication why the employee was not retained in relation to other employees in the affected position classifications or job classifications.
Section 1.121 Informational requirements regarding veterans' preference determinations. Once an appointment or reduction in force decision has been made, it is important that applicants for covered positions and covered employees receive information regarding the employing office's decision, in order to ensure that the rights and obligations created by the VEOA may be effectively enforced under the CAA as contemplated by section 4(c)(3)(B) of the VEOA. Accordingly, section 1.121 of the regulations requires that certain limited information regarding the employing office's decision be made available to applicants for covered positions and to covered employees, upon request.
Proposed Substantive Regulations
(b) Purpose and scope of regulations. The regulations set forth herein are the substantive regulations that the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance has promulgated pursuant to section 4(c)(4) of the VEOA, in accordance with the rulemaking procedure set forth in section 304 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. § 1384). The purpose of subparts B, C and D of these regulations is to define veterans' preference and the administration of veterans' preference as applicable to Federal employment in the Legislative Branch. (5 U.S.C. § 2108, as applied by the VEOA). The purpose of subpart E of these regulations is to ensure that the principles of the veterans' preference laws are integrated into the existing employment and retention policies and processes of those employing offices with employees covered by the VEOA, and to provide for transparency in the application of veterans' preference in covered appointment and retention decisions. Provided, nothing in these regulations shall be construed so as to require an employing office to reduce any existing veterans' preference rights and protections that it may afford to preference eligible individuals.
Sec. 1.102 Definitions.
(o) Preference eligible means veterans, spouses, widows, widowers or mothers who meet the definition of "preference eligible" in 5 U.S.C. § 2108(3)(A)-(G).
(p) Qualified applicant means an applicant for a covered position whom an employing office deems to satisfy the requisite minimum job-related requirements of the position. Where the employing office uses an entrance examination or evaluation for a covered position that is numerically scored, the term "qualified applicant" shall mean that the applicant has received a passing score on the examination or evaluation.
(q) Separated under honorable conditions means either an honorable or a general discharge from the armed forces. The Department of Defense is responsible for administering and defining military discharges.
(t) Veteran means persons as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2108, or any superseding legislation.
Sec. 1.103 Adoption of regulations.
(a) Adoption of regulations. Section 4(c)(4)(A) of the VEOA generally authorizes the Board to issue regulations to implement section 4(c). In addition, section 4(c)(4)(B) of the VEOA directs the Board to promulgate regulations that are "the same as the most relevant substantive regulations (applicable with respect to the Executive Branch) promulgated to implement the statutory provisions referred to in paragraph (3)" of section 4(c) of the VEOA. Those statutory provisions are section 2108, sections 3309 through 3312, and subchapter I of chapter 35, of title 5, United States Code. The regulations issued by the Board herein are on all matters for which section 4(c)(4)(b) of the VEOA requires a regulation to be issued. Specifically, it is the Board's considered judgment based on the information available to it at the time of promulgation of these regulations, that, with the exception of the regulations adopted and set forth herein, there are no other "substantive regulations (applicable with respect to the Executive Branch) promulgated to implement the statutory provisions referred to in paragraph (3)" of section 4(c) of the VEOA that need be adopted.
(b) Modification of substantive regulations. As a qualification to the statutory obligation to issue regulations that are "the same as the most substantive regulations (applicable with respect to the Executive Branch)," section 4(c)(4)(B) of the VEOA authorizes the Board to "determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under" section 4(c) of the VEOA.
(c) Rationale for Departure from the Most Relevant Executive Branch Regulations. The Board concludes that it must promulgate regulations accommodating the human resource systems existing in the Legislative Branch; and that such regulations must take into account the fact that the Board does not possess the statutory and Executive Order based government-wide policy making authority underlying OPM's counterpart VEOA regulations governing the Executive Branch. OPM's regulations are designed for the competitive service (defined in 5 U.S.C. §2102(a)(2)), which does not exist in the employing offices subject to this regulation. Therefore, to follow the OPM regulations would create detailed and complex rules and procedures for a workforce that does not exist in the Legislative Branch, while providing no VEOA protections to the covered Legislative Branch employees. We have chosen to propose specially tailored regulations, rather than simply to adopt those promulgated by OPM, so that we may effectuate Congress' intent in extending the principles of the veterans' preference laws to the Legislative Branch through the VEOA.
Subject to Section 1.106, employing offices are responsible for making all veterans' preference determinations, consistent with the VEOA.
Sec. 1.106 Procedures for bringing claims under the VEOA.
Messenger - One whose primary duty is the supervision or performance of general messenger work (such as running errands, delivering messages, and answering call bells).
Sec. 1.108 Veterans' preference in appointments to non-restricted covered positions.
(b) In all other situations involving appointment to a covered position, employing offices shall consider veterans' preference eligibility as an affirmative factor that is given weight in a manner that is proportionately comparable to the points prescribed in 5 U.S.C. § 3309 in the employing office's determination of who will be appointed from among qualified applicants.
Sec. 1.109 Crediting experience in appointments to covered positions.
Sec. 1.110 Waiver of physical requirements in appointments to covered positions.
(b) Subject to (c) below, if an employing office determines that, on the basis of evidence before it, an otherwise qualified applicant who is a preference eligible described in 5 U.S.C. §2108(3)(c) who has a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more is not able to fulfill the physical requirements of the covered position, the employing office shall notify the preference eligible of the reasons for the determination and of the right to respond and to submit additional information to the employing office, within 15 days of the date of the notification. Should the preference eligible make a timely response the employing office, at the highest level within the employing office, shall render a final determination of the physical ability of the preference eligible to perform the duties of the position, taking into account the response and any additional information provided by the preference eligible. When the employing office has completed its review of the proposed disqualification on the basis of physical disability, it shall send its findings to the preference eligible.
(c) Nothing in this section shall relieve an employing office of any greater obligation it may have pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) as applied by section 102(a)(3) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(3).
Subpart D - Veteran's preference in reductions in force
1.111 Definitions applicable in reductions in force.
1.112 Application of preference in reductions in force.
1.113 Crediting experience in reductions in force.
1.114 Waiver of physical requirements in reductions in force.
1.115 Transfer of functions.
(a) Competing covered employees are the covered employees within a particular position or job classification, at or within a particular competitive area, as those terms are defined below.
(b) Competitive area is that portion of the employing office's organizational structure, as determined by the employing office, in which covered employees compete for retention. A competitive area must be defined solely in terms of the employing office's organizational unit(s) and geographical location, and it must include all employees within the competitive area so defined. A competitive area may consist of all or part of an employing office. The minimum competitive area is a department or subdivision of the employing office under separate administration within the local commuting area.
(c) Position classifications or job classifications are determined by the employing office, and shall refer to all covered positions within a competitive area that are in the same grade, occupational level or classification, and which are similar enough in duties, qualification requirements, pay schedules, tenure (type of appointment)and working conditions so that an employing office may reassign the incumbent of one position to any of the other positions in the position classification without undue interruption.
Sec. 1.113 Crediting experience in reductions in force.
In computing length of service in connection with a reduction in force, the employing office shall provide credit to preference eligible covered employees as follows:
(1) the length of time in active service in the armed forces during a war, or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized; or
(2) the total length of time in active service in the armed forces if he is included under 5 U.S.C. § 3501(a)(3)(A), (B), or (C); and
Sec. 1.114 Waiver of physical requirements in reductions in force.
(a) If an employing office determines, on the basis of evidence before it, that a covered employee is preference eligible, the employing office shall waive:
(2) physical requirements if, in the opinion of the employing office, on the basis of evidence before it, including any recommendation of an accredited physician submitted by the preference eligible, the preference eligible is physically able to perform efficiently the duties of the position.
(b) If an employing office determines that, on the basis of evidence before it, a preference eligible described in 5 U.S.C. § 2108(3)(c) who has a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more is not able to fulfill the physical requirements of the covered position, the employing office shall notify the preference eligible of the reasons for the determination and of the right to respond and to submit additional information to the employing office within 15 days of the date of the notification. Should the preference eligible make a timely response the employing office, at the highest level within the employing office, shall render a final determination of the physical ability of the preference eligible to perform the duties of the covered position, taking into account the evidence before it, including the response and any additional information provided by the preference eligible. When the employing office has completed its review of the proposed disqualification on the basis of physical disability, it shall send its findings to the preference eligible.
Sec. 1.115 Transfer of functions
(b) When one employing office is replaced by another employing office, each covered employee in the affected position classifications or job classifications in the employing office to be replaced shall be transferred to the replacing employing office for employment in a covered position for which he/she is qualified before the replacing employing office may make an appointment from another source to that position.
Subpart E - Adoption of Veterans' preference policies, recordkeeping & informational requirements.
No later than 120 calendar days following Congressional approval of this regulation, each employing office that employs one or more covered employees or that seeks applicants for a covered position shall adopt its written policy specifying how it has integrated the veterans' preference requirements of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 and these regulations into its employment and retention processes. Upon timely request and the demonstration of good cause, the Executive Director, in his/her discretion, may grant such an employing office additional time for preparing its policy. Each such employing office will make its policies available to applicants for appointment to a covered position and to covered employees in accordance with these regulations and to the public upon request. The act of adopting a veterans' preference policy shall not relieve any employing office of any other responsibility or requirement of the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 or these regulations. An employing office may amend or replace its veterans' preference policies as it deems necessary or appropriate, so long as the resulting policies are consistent with the VEOA and these regulations.
Sec. 1.117 Preservation of records made or kept.
(a) An employing office shall state in any announcements and advertisements it makes concerning vacancies in covered positions that the staffing action is governed by the VEOA.
(b) An employing office shall invite applicants for a covered position to identify themselves as veterans' preference eligibles, provided that in doing so:
(1) the employing office shall state clearly on any written application or questionnaire used for this purpose or make clear orally, if a written application or questionnaire is not used, that the requested information is intended for use solely in connection with the employing office's obligations and efforts to provide veterans' preference to preference eligibles in accordance with the VEOA; and
(2) the employing office shall state clearly that disabled veteran status is requested on a voluntary basis, that it will be kept confidential in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) as applied by section 102(a)(3) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(3), that refusal to provide it will not subject the individual to any adverse treatment except the possibility of an adverse determination regarding the individual's status as a preference eligible as a disabled veteran under the VEOA, and that any information obtained in accordance with this section concerning the medical condition or history of an individual will be collected, maintained and used only in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) as applied by section 102(a)(3) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(3).
(c) An employing office shall provide the following information in writing to all qualified applicants for a covered position:
(b) Written guidances and notices to covered employees required by subsection (a) above shall include, at a minimum:
(1) the VEOA definition of veterans' "preference eligible" as set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 2108 or any superseding legislation, providing the actual, current definition along with the statutory citation;
(c) Employing offices are also expected to answer covered employee questions concerning the employing office's veterans' preference policies and practices.
(b) Any notice under paragraph (a) shall include -
(1) the personnel action to be taken with respect to the covered employee involved;
(3) a description of the procedures applicable in identifying employees for release;
(4) the covered employee's competitive area;
(5) the covered employee's eligibility for veterans' preference in retention and how that preference eligibility was determined;
(6) the retention status and preference eligibility of the other employees in the affected position classifications or job classifications within the covered employee's competitive area;
(7) the place where the covered employee may inspect the regulations and records pertinent to him/her, as detailed in section 1.121(b) below; and
(8) a description of any appeal or other rights which may be available.
(c) (1) The director of the employing office may, in writing, shorten the period of advance notice required under subsection (a), with respect to a particular reduction in force, if necessary because of circumstances not reasonably foreseeable.
(2) No notice period may be shortened to less than 30 days under this subsection.
Sec. 1.121 Informational requirements regarding veterans' preference determinations.
(3) If the applicant is preference eligible and a qualified applicant, the employing office's explanation shall advise whether the person appointed to the covered position for which the applicant was applying is preference eligible.
(b) Upon written request by a covered employee who has received a notice of reduction in force under section 1.120 above (or his/her representative), the employing office shall promptly provide a written explanation of the manner in which veterans' preference was applied in the employing office's retention decision regarding that covered employee. Such explanation shall state:
(A) a list of all covered employee(s) in the requesting employee's position classification or job classification and competitive area who were retained by the employing office, identifying those employees by job title only and stating whether each such employee is preference eligible,
(B) a list of all covered employee(s) in the requesting employee's position classification or job classification and competitive area who were not retained by the employing office, identifying those employees by job title only and stating whether each such employee is preference eligible, and
(C) a brief statement of the reason(s) for the employing office's decision not to retain the covered employee.
END OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS