NTEU Fishbowl May and June 2008

NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
BEN FRANKLIN STATION, BOX 7672, WASHINGTON D.C. 20044 - PHONE 202-566-2788
INTERNET http://www.nteu280.org E MAIL Hirzy.John@epa.gov

DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX

Inside The Fishbowl
Official Newsletter of NTEU 280

May – June 2008 Volume 23 - Number 2

PRESIDENT Bill Evans (202)566-2789

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. (202)566-2788

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Diane Lynne (202)566-2786

CHIEF STEWARD Rosezella Canty-Letsome (202)566-2784

VICE PRESIDENTS Dr. Arthur Chiu, M.D. (202)564-3296

Diane Rains (410)305-2908

Freshteh Toghrol, Ph.D. (410)305-2755

Dwight Welch (703)603-8774

SECRETARY Anne-Marie Pastorkovich (202)343-9623

TREASURER Dr. Bernard Schneider (703)305-5555

EDITOR Diane Lynne (202)566-2786

MAIN UNION NUMBER (202) 566-2785

UNION FAX NUMBER (202) 566-1460

NTEU Chapter 280 Website: www.nteu280.org

NTEU National Website: www.nteu.org

Link to NTEU Membership Form: https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf1187.pdf

Table of Contents

*1. OPP Reorganization and New Management Ratio Update: Not in OPP? This Still Can Impact You! As goes OPP so Can Go the Agency!

*2. Results from NTEU’s OPP Survey on the Planned OPP Reorganization/restructuring are Charted Below!

*3. EPA’s Coalition of Unions Roils Agency Leadership in Latest Missive

*4. Kudos to Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock for a New Inclusive Broadcast Design for Regional Progress Meetings

*5. Changes in the Office of Human Resources and Status of the EPA Vacancy Announcement for the Director of EPA’s Labor and Employee Relations Staff

*6. NTEU to OARM: For PARS, One CJE Does Not Make for a Min Sat Performance Appraisal

*7. NTEU Celebrates Office of International Affairs (OIA) Reconsideration of Eliminating Scientific Job Classifications; Concerns Remain on Agency Focus and Depth of International Work (See OGC Vacancy Announcement)

*8. NTEU Requests to Negotiate over Proposed Travel Policy

*9. Can you Qualify for Reasonable Accommodation, or is There a Better Approach?

*10. EPA Library Update

*11. Supreme Court Decision Supports Feds Protection From Retaliation for Claiming Age Discrimination

*12. House Passes Telework Bill

*13. Assumptions for Every PARS Agreement

*14. NTEU Seeks Expansive EEOC Rule

*15. NTEU Pushes for Enhanced Transit Subsidies to Increase From $115 to $220 per Month

*16. White House/Congress Stand off Intensifies as Congress Seeks Key Documents on Greenhouse – Gas Emissions and Ozone Air Quality Standards

*1. Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Reorganization and New Management Ratio Update: Not in OPP? This Can Impact You! As goes OPP so Can Go the Agency! By Diane Rains, and Freshteh Toghrol, Ph.D., VP Executive Board/ members and OPP Committee members

The latest news from the OPP reorganization front is that OPP management is using “A Stronger EPA” to justify adding additional layers of management to some of the Divisions. In proposing to transform Team Leaders and/or Associate Division Directors into first line supervisors, the expressed intent to reduce the employee to supervisor ratio becomes instead one more layer of management to report to and keep updated with any work being accomplished. NTEU has recommended that if a branch has more than eleven employees, and the employees have agreed that a lower supervisor/employee ratio is desirable, a restructuring to create more branches would accomplish the same goal without creating a new layer of management. As the union gets more documents surrounding this intended reorganization, it becomes clearer that this has been in the works for quite some time and that involving the unions predecisionally has never been in the plans. If you question this, please go to OHR: EPA Website on Agency Reorganizations . There you can see where union involvement is placed in the reorganization process (step 6, after formal approval). For those of you in OPP not yet involved in these changes, and think, “what is the big deal to me”? The answer is that once this is approved for some of the divisions, then the others may want to implement the same structure, making it harder for the unions to negotiate better reorganization plans.

Further information from OHR/reorganization policy: Union Review: The Agency encourages offices to include unions in the design phase of the reorganization process. However, even if the unions were involved in the earlier phase they have the right to review the final reorganization – after it has received final approval by the Agency. In general, unions have 21-30 calendar days to review the approved package and submit negotiable proposals. At that point, it is difficult to effect a change. In our meeting on April 29, 2008 with Debbie Edwards, Marty Monnell, and Oscar Morales, the managers wanted to have each Division separately changing their organizational structure based on the perception that the justification for these changes was based upon the guidance document associated with “A Stronger EPA” initiative which allowed the reduction of the employee to supervisor ratio. Allowing each Division to handle its reorganization separately may have weakened the impact of early union involvement in the OPP reorganization process.

Comments received so far from our bargaining unit members are nearly unanimous in the view that the proposed changes will add a layer of management and not improve organizational efficiency or effectiveness. Adding another layer of management when our budget is shrinking, employees are retiring and those of us in the work trenches have more to do, does not make sense. Additionally, team leaders (who are currently part of the bargaining unit) will have to take on supervisor duties and responsibilities without an increase in GS grade and lose the representation of their union.

The process of changing the structure of the OPP branches should involve an analysis of different options, weighing in opinions of employees and their respective unions. Thank you to those of you who gave NTEU your opinions on the proposed changes to the OPP organizational structure. Your voice matters, and NTEU can amplify those voices as your representative!

*2. Results from the OPP Survey on the Planned OPP reorganization/restructuring are in! By Diane Rains,VP Executive Board/ member OPP Committee

Results from the OPP Survey on the planned OPP reorganization/restructuring are in!

First of all, thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to our survey sent to OPP all. We heard from NTEU members and non-members alike. Special thanks to everyone for your comments. Your opinions matter to us and we will endeavor to represent your views to management. A comment was received that this was not a scientific survey and we agree. This was a quick way to see if our views were in line with the employees. We have received overwhelming response from OPP employees and as you can see below on the chart, your views are in favor of labor and management working together before decisions are made. Comments received concerning both Team Leaders and Associate Division Directors becoming supervisors reflected a general dislike of adding layers of management and responders instead favored the creation of new branches, if the branch chief feels overburdened by the size of the branch. We even had a manager agreeing with us there! There was however, some confusion concerning the survey question about Associate Division Directors becoming supervisors. A comment was made that this was already the case (Associate Division Director being a supervisor) but the Associate Division Director position is a non-supervisory position (same as Team Leaders (TL)) so the question may have been incorrectly judged as something already in place.

*3. EPA’s Coalition of Unions Roils Agency Leadership in Latest Missive

This letter was sent to Administrator Johnson on June 16, 2008 as part of a series of exchanges between the Union Coalition and the Administrator:

June 16, 2008

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (1101A)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Johnson:

Your letter to EPA’s unions dated May 28, 2008, emphasizes management’s assertion that the union is just another voice providing input. You note that a key to the success of your efforts is assuring that all EPA staff, including the unions, have a voice in “…what we do and how we do it.” Mr. Johnson, there is a big difference between recognizing the right to freedom of speech and a clear acknowledgement of the union's Statutory Right under 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. The views expressed by union representatives have a unique weight due to the legal rights and standing that unions have to bargain over working conditions. These legal rights were accorded by Congress in recognition that "....the statutory protection of the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them safeguards the public interest, contributes to the effective conduct of public business..." Actions under your administration have reflected a misunderstanding, disregard, or defiance of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

You note that building a “Stronger” EPA is one of your four core priorities and that “... unions have been involved in shaping the efforts of the work groups currently under way.” But did you know that EPA’s unions were first invited to participate in the Stronger EPA work groups after the work groups had already drafted their recommendations and then only after EPA’s unions appealed to Lek Kadeli to permit our involvement? We appreciate Mr. Kadeli’s efforts to include us, even at that late date, but our involvement should have been continuous after OARM solicited our initial thoughts. Moreover, why did OARM, the home of both the labor relations office and the Stronger EPA initiative, decide not to invite our participation at the outset of the work group process?

It appears that under your administration, EPA unions are invited only to comment or provide input into the priorities that have already been set. Your administration often neglects to invite EPA unions for their input on issues impacting employees. And it appears to us that when our input is sought, you only seek validation and ignore comments that would impact your schedule for implementing a change in workplace conditions at EPA.

We will not attend the National Partnership Council (NPC) meeting planned for June 2008 because you have not demonstrated that EPA values its unions as true partners. Since EPA's unions view the monthly labor-management calls as an extension of the NPC meetings, we will also not participate in those calls. The biggest reason for our decision to suspend union involvement in partnership with management through the NPC is the continuing dismissal of the union's collective bargaining role. Without a commitment that EPA will abide by its statutory obligations, "partnership" is a sham. OARM currently has three policies in draft that significantly impact working conditions of our membership, yet we have not been afforded official notification of these policies, briefings, or the opportunity to negotiate. Any of these policies would have been good candidates for the pre-decisional involvement process that we are requesting you to engage in with us as part of our NPC activities. They are: the Emergency Telework Policy Revision, which is in review as a final draft; the Volunteer Telework policy Revision, which is in the comment review stage; and the Pandemic and Emergency Human Capital Reference Guide, which is a final draft in review. The unions were not solicited for comments on any of these draft documents. When individual unions discovered the existence of these on-going policy documents, our attempts to be briefed on these issues were ignored.

It is a challenge to adequately represent our membership, and uphold our legal duties of representation if we are stonewalled by an Agency that prefers to obfuscate rather than collaborate. The employees of this agency are best served by the later, yet repeatedly receive the former.

Mr. Johnson, we would like to work with EPA in a true partnership in the manner defined and expected by Congress and we would like to lay the ground work now for an improved relationship between organized labor and management in the next administration. We welcome the opportunity to talk with Lek Kadeli, Susie Hazen, and Russ Wright about our issues. But some of these issues have already been identified in our original communication with you on February 29, 2008.

We call on you to respond to our issues as outlined in our original February 2008 letter:

Labor and Employee Relations Office problems;

Performance and Recognition System (“PARS”) design implementation, and administration issues;

Good faith compliance with Agency obligations with the unions under PARS;

Pre-decisional Involvement (“PDI”);

Good faith bargaining;

Good faith response to information requests under the Statute;

Senior management avoiding unions on contentious issues;

Adjudication process for Principles of Scientific Integrity;

EPA dismissal of Coalition advice on policy matters;

Library closures and pathetic proposals to reopen them;

In-house legal resource used against employees and to support managers; and

Agenda items proposed by Unions are commonly ignored.

We look forward to your response and hope that we can work together toward a truly Stronger EPA for the benefit of our collective bargaining unit members.

Fraternally yours,

Signed By 22 EPA Union Presidents/Vice Presidents

For copies of all the correspondence, hit reply with Union Coalition in the subject line

*4. Kudos to Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock for a New Inclusive Broadcast Design for Regional Progress Meetings

It’s no mistake that we are commending this initiative directly under our letter condemning Agency leadership in labor management issues. The letter above details instances where the Agency won’t share information with the unions, yet this initiative from the Deputy Administrator is trending toward openness and inclusiveness. We like this trend, and hope it spreads to workplace issues and labor relations in general.

If you saw the June 19, 2008 all-hands memo from Mr. Peacock, entitled “Same Wine, One Bottle,” (how could anyone miss it?) you will note that Regional Progress Meetings, starting toward the end of June, will be broadcast in Real-Time on EPA’s IPTV for all to view. He provides an Intranet site (http://intranet.epa.gov/learning) to obtain meeting materials and to submit a question that could be used and discussed during a meeting.

We are asking that the new set up go one step further to allow for real time questions e-mailed to the meeting locale while the meeting is on-going. While some of our members may be able to predict which issues they want to see discussed, others joining in from their desks may find issues and questions arising as a result of the discussion that they would like to see addressed. Someone at the meeting, while it is on-going, can field e-mailed questions, and group them for discussion at appropriate intervals, or perhaps at the meeting conclusion. That type of instantaneous feedback and discussion can really foster learning across EPA.

*5. Changes in the Office of Human Resources and Status of the EPA Vacancy Announcement for the Director of EPA’s Labor and Employee Relations Staff

Ken Venuto announced his resignation as Director of EPA's Office of Human Resources, effective July 18.

AA for OARM, Luis Luna has reassigned Rich Lemley to be Director of Human Resources. Rich has been Director of the Office of Administration since 2002 and has had good relations with NTEU Chpt. 280. We are looking forward to working with Rich in his new role, which includes the oversight of EPA’s Labor and Employee Relations staff.

In the last Fishbowl, NTEU Chapt. 280 provided details of the vacancy announcement for the Director of Labor and Employee Relations (LER) that led us to question whether it was a true competitive hire or a job that was already wired for someone. After the process had commenced past the second interview phase, the vacancy announcement was cancelled and no applicant was named to the position.

The dysfunction in labor/management relations at EPA cries out for new leadership in LER. This is a prime opportunity to “audition” a new Acting Director and begin building bridges between labor and management.

If the Agency decides to take this reasonable approach, we respectfully suggest that they re-read our suggested criteria for the job:

If NTEU Chapter 280 was asked to provide input into a job announcement for the Director of Labor and Employee Relations, it might read something like this:

Wanted: inherently fair individual willing to negotiate with unions on matters concerning employee welfare and impact and implementation as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and in conformance with the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The ideal candidate will be responsive to Union requests, and have the willingness and ability to push back on bad managers seeking to discriminate, retaliate and otherwise punish employees with baseless personnel actions. The ideal candidate will oversee national negotiations for agreements like PARS in good faith and handle reorganizations and other changes to conditions of employment in the best interests of the Agency and the Agency’s most valuable resource: the employees of EPA.

*6. NTEU to OARM: For PARS, One CJE Does Not Make for a Min Sat Performance Appraisal

We have heard you as you have filed grievances and expressed your displeasure about PARS. The most strikingly unfair provision is that of being relegated to a minimally satisfactory (min sat) rating if a single critical job element (CJE) is rated as such. That’s right, if you were to receive an outstanding rating on four CJEs, but only got a min sat on number five, your rating of record would be min sat. NTEU took our concerns beyond LER when they were unresponsive to our requests for reconsideration. We were very pleased when Susan Hazen, Principal Deputy AA for OARM, convened a conference call on April 17, 2008 inviting all of EPA’s Unions to participate in sharing our thoughts on restructuring this aspect of PARS. The two main thoughts presented were to either re-structure PARS by establishing “weighted CJEs” or to simply change the equation so that a majority of CJEs would need to be judged min sat before that would be the rating of record.

All of EPA’s Unions are agitating for Agency management to be responsive to our requests on behalf of our membership. We thought that this current “min sat scenario”, which senior Agency officials agreed was wrong, would induce the Agency to make it right. As of now, we have not heard any follow up. Expeditious resolution of this issue would be one of the action items that EPA’s Coalition of Unions is seeking favorable resolution. We urge Agency leadership to act on this, as lack of progress on this issue is being construed as management disinterest in reconstituting the Labor/Management Partnership Council.

NTEU poll: Would you want weighted CJEs, or simply changing the number of min sat CJEs that would be required before a min sat rating is obtained? Hit reply with PARS in the Subject line and tells us your thoughts on this.

NTEU is very pleased that OIA management has reconsidered its earlier classification plan and is permitting our Environmental Scientists in OIA to retain their professional titles. Science is at the core of the Agency’s mission, and with this important decision, these employees will continue to do the work of scientists as they have been since they were hired by OIA. Future hiring must continue to be based upon need, and should not preclude the recruitment of professionals with professional titles in OIA or anywhere else in the Agency. This will bolster the Agency's ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a talented workforce, and otherwise strengthen EPA by providing for sound succession planning.

As OIA put the finishing touches on their reorganization, they thought this would be a good time to convert their environmental scientists to generalist positions, so that all program non-managerial employees in OIA would bear the same title: International Environmental Program Specialists. NTEU had vigorously opposed this proposal, and repeatedly voiced our opposition to this plan.

The Office of International Affairs (OIA) is a microcosm of the Agency as a whole. A decision to re-classify all the professionals as International Environmental Program Specialists (IEPS) (GS-0301) would have only exacerbated a Agency-wide problem with succession planning. The rationale was that everyone in OIA does the same thing – “international work” - so they should be called the same thing. What's next: converting all our biologists, engineers and scientists in the water office into “Water Environmental Program Specialists, or some other concocted title, because they all work in the water office?

The truth is that every EPA employee brings a unique perspective to his or her position that is based upon their knowledge and experience. Employees with technical degrees bring a different suite of expertise than do business majors, or human resource officials, and this diversity of talent, expertise, and knowledge is critically important to all EPA offices. The original OIA plan had the following issues associated with it:

The International Environmental Program Specialist is a concocted title under OPM’s series GS-0301, “Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series”, which does not have a positive education requirement. Clearly, one would expect a tremendous difference in work product if there was an environmental scientist reviewing or commenting on an international scientific treaty vs. someone under the GS-0301 title with no scientific background. A “Miscellaneous Administration and Program Specialist” tasked with the assignment, instead of being able to comment based on educational knowledge, experience and expertise, would need to farm it out to someone else for review, if time permitted, or the lack of expertise might be evident in the review. EPA input to the Department of State, the U.S. Trade Representative and to other Executive Department Offices and international organizations must be of the highest quality and scientific integrity. It’s what is and should continue to be expected from the largest environmental agency in the world. Whether professionals from other AAships/regions will always be available to provide in depth review and counsel within the usual tight deadlines is questionable, if not implausible. With resources scarce all around, each AAship/region has to meet their own priorities first.

The decision not to replace the senior science advisor following his retirement in 2007, appeared to be further evidence that OIA management was seeking to reorganize with a goal toward amassing an office of “processors”, with technical work being farmed out to other agencies, departments and AAships/regions. This could have been a dangerous precedent that would have diminished EPA’s ability to weigh in on critical interagency processes involving international environmental policies and actions. There is simply no reason for an entire office to be filled with "generalists" nor was that ever the intent when generalists like "environmental protection specialists" (EPS) were evolved. It was thought that having a number of these EPS's (or IEPS's) in an office gave the office flexibility to fill a variety of needs, but having every individual within a given office be a generalist was never the intent according to OARM staffing experts.

If this becomes a trend, the Agency will continue to be unable to attract, hire, and retain the best and brightest if we refuse to hire them in their professional series. This is especially true for an environmental scientist right out of school. Let's assume that the scientist right out of school accepts a job as a Grade 9 International Environmental Program Specialist (IEPS). The Grade 9 IEPS works a few years at OIA, rising to Grade 13. Then the scientist sees a great job they want in OPP or OAR. It would normally be a lateral move to a Grade 13 Environmental Scientist, assuming the incumbent was working as a scientist before. What happens? They are not qualified for the position they seek in OPP or OAR. That is because in order to be a Grade 13 Environmental Scientist, they must first demonstrate that they have been working the requisite number of years as an Environmental Scientist, and they have not....they have merely been working in a Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series - a 301 series. So if they want to take that other job, they may well have to accept quite a demotion to get there. This is unnecessary and extremely poor planning for future staffing, especially given the existing and growing need for technical and scientific expertise within OIA.

Within OGC, there is an international practice that supports OIA, especially the trade work in OIA and all other international programs of the Agency. It seems to NTEU that the SES position that oversees this OGC international work, and lists the “international duties” would also list international experience as a qualification. Apparently OGC thinks that a supervisor of international work requires no expertise, background, or experience of their own in international law. NTEU sees this as yet another attempt by the Agency to diminish the importance of international environmental work at EPA, even as the international community is increasingly more aware and active in promoting environmental cooperation across borders.

The OGC vacancy announcement for an Associate General Counsel (Cross-Cutting Issues), Job Announcement #EPA-08-SES-OGC-6441 (closing July 17, 2008) should be pulled, revised, and re-advertised. The successful applicant, who will be performing the international duties, should be recruited for the position because of their strong international qualifications amongst their other attributes listed as either criteria in the mandatory technical qualifications of the job announcement, or in the optional desirable qualifications, where the Agency lists a laundry list of Acts, activities, and functions – but no reference to international law.

*8. NTEU Requests to Negotiate over Proposed Travel Policy

NTEU participated in a briefing given by OCFO concerning a proposed travel policy that would address the extra fees being instituted for air travel including baggage and “premier” seating in the coach section of planes. OCFO wants to issue a policy that EPA will only reimburse the traveler for the cost of the first checked bag, unless the traveler is on official travel for 3 consecutive nights, then the Agency will reimburse for 2 checked bags.

OCFO is proposing to only reimburse travelers for “premium” aisle, or front coach seats with extra leg room pending annual medical certification of the traveler.

NTEU had several reactions to the briefing. First, we wondered why EPA wasn’t pressuring GAO in the government negotiations with the airlines, to factor in two-bag coverage as part of the government contract commencing October 1, 2008. Just as government doesn’t pay extra for flight changes and last minute ticketing, the extra cost of baggage should be part of the new contract, so our employees are not nickel and dimmed over this. In fact, we were told that EPA wasn’t planning to send anyone to the City Pair Panel, where they might be able to negotiate over premier seats and bags. We hope that as a result of this briefing OCFO will send a representative to these Panels to advocate for EPA employees.

In the meantime, since all the airlines have different fee structures, and OCFO has no data on how much extra baggage or seats is costing the Agency, we urged that an Agency-wide policy was premature. Surely, most folks traveling less than three days will seek to travel with just carry on or one bag, except those that need two for a variety of reasons. Without data, we think that our employee’s needs balance out, and there is no need for a policy. We are unaware of problems between employees and their managers over this issue. Similarly, if a traveler requires a premium seat they should consult with their managers.

Nonetheless, since we need to be prepared if OCFO insists on issuing this policy, NTEU has requested to negotiate and our national negotiator has drawn up a draft proposal covering these issues. If you want to find out more about the draft or our proposals, hit reply with travel policy in the subject line.

*9. Can you Qualify for Reasonable Accommodation, or is There a Better Approach for Your Situation?

If you are afflicted by a medical condition that is “temporary,” then medical flexiplace might be the answer for you. Medical Flexiplace is not implemented through the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator. An applicant would need to work with the OHR portion of their AAship and their supervisor, or if amenable, just your supervisor. A medical flexiplace agreement could be devised that is effective for 6 months, (and renewable for another 6 months.) If the disability needs are considered longer term than 6 months or a year, or if the needs are permanent, then the applicant would seek permanent arrangements through the reasonable accommodation process. An applicant could seek to be qualified through both processes simultaneously.

We’ve heard of supervisors being flexible for employees undergoing short term problems, such as difficulties adjusting to medications and recovery from major health issues. We applaud these accommodations, which permit employees to keep doing their jobs by allowing them to work at home either several hours a day or several days at home per week. Just make certain that you have a clear written understanding with your supervisor concerning the details of this arrangement. Remember, if it’s not clear and in writing, and you develop a conflict sometime down the road, your supervisor’s understanding will carry more weight than your understanding, which could lead to a very bad result.

Remember also, that when you attest and submit to your hours in PeoplePlus, flexiplace hours or medical flexiplace hours are not entered as regular hours, but have their own code. This is not uniformly done, and employees in many offices enter all time as regular hours. However, we’ve heard of supervisors accosting employees on flexiplace for inputting both hours worked at home and hours worked in the office as “regular hours.” Their interpretation is that “regular hours” means that you were physically at the Agency for all those hours that are inputted as regular. Such an interpretation could lead a supervisor who wanted to “get you” to interpret such a PeoplePlus submission as a willful falsification. To avoid problems, get a written agreement from your supervisor instructing you about how to enter your hours under any special flexiplace agreement.

A recent OECA-wide message was sent on July 2, 2008, and other AAships may have posted similar messages, advising employees that a new Telework time reporting code for reasonable accommodation was added to PeoplePlus. The code, TWRAC, may be used only to identify the employee as using flexiplace under reasonable accommodation and may not be used by the Agency for any other purpose. All employees having access to timecards are reminded that they should keep confidentiality associated with any usage of this time reporting code.

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Provided by Bill Haig, National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator

Q1 - WHAT EXACTLY IS “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION?”

A1 - Reasonable Accommodation is the removal of a work place barrier for qualified people with disabilities to allow them the opportunity to apply for employment, perform the essential functions of a job or, to enjoy equal benefits/privileges of employment.

Q2 - WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION?

A2 - ONLY applicants or employees who are disabled in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 amended, EPA Policy and Procedures for Reasonable Accommodation are eligible for reasonable accommodation consideration.

Q3 - WHO IS DISABLED UNDER THE REHABILITATION ACT?

A3 - Under the Rehabilitation Act an individual is “disabled” if the person has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity of that person; has a history of such an impairment, or; is regarded as having such an impairment. It is important to note that persons “regarded as” are not eligible for reasonable accommodation because, essentially, there is nothing to accommodate.

Q4 - ARE SPECIFIC MEDICAL IMPAIRMENTS INCLUDED AS DISABLING?

A4 - NO!, there are no specific impairments included as per se disabling conditions. The medical condition MUST fall within at least one of the three prongs of the definition in answer #3 above.

Q5 - DOES EPA HAVE MORE THAN ONE SET OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCEDURES?

A5 - YES, EPA has procedures for AFGE bargaining unit members and procedures that cover all other employees. Both documents can be viewed at the following web site: http://intranet.epa.gov/civilrights/reasonableaccommodation.htm.

Q6 - WHO COORDINATES THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION POLICY AND PROCEDURES?

A6 - The coordination of the program is the responsibility of the National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator, Office of Civil Rights. There are Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators within the ten regions and RTP, Las Vegas and Cincinnati labs to assist with the implementation within these areas.

Q7 - MUST ALL REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS BE MADE IN WRITING?

A7 - NO! All requests, either oral or in writing, must be processed. The agency is required to track reasonable accommodation requests and each of the two procedures provide written reporting mechanisms and forms in the appendices. For the purpose of tracking reasonable accommodations it is expected that all oral requests be put in writing in accordance with the instructions in the procedures.

Q8 - HOW ARE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS PROCESSED?

A8 - An employee may submit a reasonable accommodation request to anyone in his/her supervisory chain of command or to the National or Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators. It is strongly advised that requests be submitted and processed by the employee’s first line supervisor.

Q9 - ARE THERE SPECIFIC TIME LIMITS FOR GRANTING OR DENYING A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST?

A9 - YES! Each procedure outlines specific time limits from the point at which the request is made and a decision to grant or deny is made. The procedures identify a maximum time limit of 25 days. However, many accommodation requests can be granted or denied prior to the conclusion of the 25 days and should be *processed accordingly. An example of the need to process in less than the maximum 25 days would be when an applicant who is deaf requests a sign language interpreter for a job interview he/she has in 2 weeks. This request must be processed immediately in order for this applicant to be appropriately accommodated for the job interview.

Q10- WHEN MAY EPA REQUEST MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION?

A10- EPA may request medical documentation when there is a need to determine if the person has a disability where the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious; may ask for supplemental documentation if the original documentation submitted does not clearly explain the nature of the disability, including functional limitations, major life activities affected or need for reasonable accommodation.

Q11- WHEN MAY EPA NOT REQUEST MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION?

A11- EPA may not request medical documentation where both the disability and the need for reasonable accommodation are obvious, or; the individual has already provided the agency with sufficient information to document the existence of the disability and the functional limitations imposed by the disability on that individual.

Q12- WHEN NECESSARY WHO REQUESTS, RECEIVES AND REVIEWS MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION?

A12- Under the non-AFGE Procedures the employee must authorize, in writing, either the RAC or the decision maker to request, receive and review medical documentation for the purpose of determining if the individual is a person with a disability. In both situations, all medical documents must be maintained in a confidential manner and shall be forwarded to the National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator (RAC) for the purpose of maintaining medical records and files on all reasonable accommodation requests.

Q13- WHEN MUST REASSIGNMENT BE CONSIDERED AS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION?

A13- Reassignment is the accommodation of “LAST RESORT” and will be considered only when the agency determines that no other reasonable accommodation will permit the employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of his/her current position.

Q14- IS EPA REQUIRED TO INFORM AN INDIVIDUAL OF THE DECISION MADE REGARDING THEIR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST?

A14- YES! It is required when a decision regarding the individual’s request is made, that the applicant or employee be informed in writing. The denial of reasonable accommodation must include the specific reason why the request was denied and inform the person of their rights to appeal as well as other available avenues of redress. Standard language regarding this notification is included in the Agency’s Reasonable Accommodation Procedures.

Q15- ARE AGENCIES REQUIRED TO TRACK REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS?

A15- YES! The EPA Reasonable Accommodation Procedures outline the specific information that must be tracked in accordance with EEOC guidelines. This information is tracked by the National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator. The Procedures also outline how medical information received as a result of the reasonable accommodation process is maintained by the National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator in a confidential manner in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Q16- ARE THERE MANY RESOURCES TO CONTACT REGARDING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION?

A16- In the appendices of the Reasonable Accommodation Procedures is a list of resources that managers, supervisors and employees can contact to assist with suggestions and recommendations related to specific accommodations for an individual. It is strongly advised that either the Local or National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator be utilized as such a resource.

Q17- WHAT DO I DO IF THERE IS NO MONEY SET ASIDE IN MY BUDGET TO PURCHASE ITEMS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION?

A17- Some regions have decided to have a centralized fund to pay for reasonable accommodation. Research done by the Job Accommodation Network and Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor, indicates that the large majority, approximately 80% of all reasonable accommodations, cost less than $1,000. It is virtually impossible to use “cost” as the reason not to provide an accommodation that is effective. EEOC guidelines clearly state that the overall budget of an agency/department would be considered, not just the operating budget of a particular office, region, unit, etc.

Q18- WHAT IS THE COMPUTER ELECTRONIC ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM (CAP)?

A18- The CAP is a program managed by the Department of Defense. EPA is a partner in this program and is therefore eligible to receive assistive technology devices and services for employees with disabilities AT NO COST to EPA. That’s right FREE!! Contact your Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator for more information about this program.

Q19- MUST REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS BE MADE AT A SPECIFIC TIME?

A19- NO! Under the Rehabilitation Act, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is an ongoing one. Thus, an individual with a disability must be permitted to request accommodation whenever he/she chooses. That request will then trigger EPA’s obligation to start the process laid out in our procedures.

Q20- WHAT DO I DO WHEN I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO????

A20- Again, each region and the three labs in Cincinnati, Las Vegas and RTP have designated Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators (LORACs) to assist management and employees with this process. The National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator services all metropolitan Washington DC employees with the reasonable accommodation process.

See this link for the Reasonable Accommodation Procedures:

http://intranet.epa.gov/civilrights/reasonableaccommodation.htm

To receive a list of these LORACs or to find out who you should contact, please call Bill Haig, National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator, Office of Civil Rights at 202-564-7959 or haig.william@epa.gov .

The Confirmation of Request for Reasonable Accommodation Form Appears Below:

APPENDIX B

CONFIRMATION OF REQUEST FOR

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FORM

1. Today's Date ______________________ 2. Date of Request ___________________

3. ______________________________ 4. _________________________________

Applicant's or Employee's Nam e Applicant's or Employee's Telephone No.

5. ______________________________________________________________________

Employee's Office, Grade and Occupational Series

6._______________________________________________________________________

Employee's Supervisors Name and Telephone Number

7._______________________________________________________________________

Name and Telephone Number of Agency Official to which Request was originally made

8. TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION REQUESTED: (For example, work place modified for wheel chair usage; assistive technology for vision impairment. If specific equipment or other effective accommodation known, please specify)

9. REASON FOR REQUESTING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: (Identify impairment requiring a change in the work place or application process)

10. IS THIS REQUEST LIKELY TO BE REPEATED?: (circle) YES NO

11. NAME OF DECISION-MAKER:_________________________________________

12. SIGNATURES

_________________________________

Employee or Applicant

_____________________________

Agency Official Receiving Request

Return Form to Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator

(Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator will assign number)

Log No.: ________________________________

*10. EPA Library Update

http://www.peer.org/campaigns/index.php _For Immediate Release:

June 16, 2008

Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

EPA LIBRARY ON EFFECTS OF NEW CHEMICALS WILL REMAIN CLOSED

Four Key Committee Chairs Ask GAO to Review EPA Library “Restoration” Plans

Washington, DC — Despite a growing need to understand the impacts of chemicals on our health and environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will not re-open its specialized library for research on the properties and effects of new chemicals, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a consequence, one of the world’s most comprehensive technical collections on pesticides and other compounds will be permanently lost.

The Office of Prevention, Pollution and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) Library, in EPA’s Washington D.C. Headquarters, had provided research services to EPA scientists who review industry requests for the introduction of new chemicals into the market. Without any public announcement or notice to its staff, EPA shut down the library in October 2006. Its holdings were dispersed and many journals “recycled.”

In December 2007, after nearly a third of agency libraries had been closed, Congress intervened and ordered EPA to re-open closed libraries but left it up to the agency to devise a plan. The details of EPA’s plan are now just becoming known. Rather than restore the OPPTS Library, EPA will instead –

Limit a re-opened EPA Headquarters Library (closed since September 2006) to a total of 150 square feet – an area smaller than a one-car garage. Within that small space, a tiny remnant of the original OPPTS Library holdings will be available as a “special Chemical Collection”;

This entire Chemical Collection will occupy one six-shelf bookcase totaling 18 linear feet. The rest of the EPA HQs Library will be contained in two bookshelves totaling 36 linear feet; and

This Chemical Collection will have no librarian assigned to it (though the restored HQ Library will have a single librarian and technician). By contrast, the OPPTS Library had three librarians and two technical staff.

The OPPTS Library had housed numerous unique toxicological studies on the potential effects of pesticides on children; up-to-date research on genetically engineered and other biotech products; and extensive literature on chemical risk assessments and emergency planning. Its former space, where EPA scientists used to review monographs, is now filled with cubicles.

“Shuttering its only library dedicated to the study of chemicals speaks profoundly to the perverse priorities of our current Environmental Protection Agency,” stated PEER Associate Director Carol Goldberg. “EPA has chosen to make its scientists far less capable of independently analyzing whatever industry submits.”

On May 22, 2008, the chairs of House Committees on Science and Technology, Energy & Commerce and Government Oversight, along with the chair of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, jointly asked the Government Accountability Office to evaluate EPA’s “plan for re-opening and resuming service at libraries that were closed over the past two years” and which Congress directed be restored. On March 26, 2008, GAO issued a scathing report blistering EPA’s recent campaign of library closures.

Details of surprisingly narrow EPA restoration plans have been dribbling out in the form of ambiguous, fragmented documents, the latest of which purports to outline a library strategic plan for “2008 and Beyond”. At the same time, EPA has not even begun consultations with its employee unions to resolve an unfair labor practices complaint concerning preemptory removal of libraries and services which have hampered the ability of agency professionals to do their jobs. Nor has EPA finished receiving public input in response to what it called a “National Dialogue” on environmental information.

“EPA apparently never had any intention of genuinely consulting with its employees, library experts or others who depend on the libraries,” Goldberg added. “There is little prospect of progress until whoever at EPA is responsible for closing these libraries – and keeping them shut – is gone.”

AFGE Council 238 Reaches Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on EPA Libraries on July 11, 2008

EPA has agreed to reopen its Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City and Headquarters’ Libraries

The Agreement calls for EPA to maintain the on-site libraries at its Headquarters offices in Washington, D.C. The new library space will house consolidated operations of the Headquarters library, Headquarters Repository, and the Chemical library. The consolidated library operations will be managed by OEI in partnership with OPPTS. OEI will institute and maintain a specialized chemical collection. An on-site professional librarian with knowledge of chemical information and library support staff as needed will be available to assist EPA staff and the public.

The agreement must still go through "Agency Head Review" pursuant to the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, and may not be effective until on or about August 10, 2008.

The Agreement features the establishment of a Union / Management Advisory Board and it is anticipated that the EPA Office of Environmental Information will continue to work collaboratively with the AFGE Council to monitor and improve EPA Libraries.

AFGE National Council of EPA Local #238 President Charles Orzehoskie and Chief Negotiator and Executive Vice President Steve Roy point out that the MOA could only get to a reasonable level of detail in committing the Agency to provide EPA libraries with "adequate space and resources". Therefore, AFGE Council 238 has asked Congress to oversee the adequateness of "...space and resources..." proposed by the Agency for each reopened library.

EPA received $1,000,000 in the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. These monies were to be spent "...to restore the network of EPA libraries recently closed or consolidated by the Administration...." Orzehoskie stated that it remains unclear to the Council just how EPA has allocated these monies to restore the EPA Library Network, but he is sure that Congress will require an accounting of the monies.

Another area of concern for Council 238 is ensuring input from the general public. Orzehoskie stated that “It is not clear to the Council what involvement if any, the public has had in this whole process, so we have asked Congress to stay on top of EPA’s activity in this regard.” Orzehoskie concluded by stating that the general public has not been left totally out in the cold with respect to access to EPA libraries since the MOA requires the libraries to be open for the general public.

*11. Supreme Court Decision Supports Feds Protection From Retaliation for Claiming Age Discrimination

When the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in late May to give federal employees the same protections private-sector employees have against retaliation for claiming age discrimination, NTEU got the result it was seeking. The union not only helped the postal worker plaintiff in this case by providing expert assistance, it filed a friend-of-the-court brief seeking an expansive reading of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). That law was passed in Congress in 1967 and extended to the federal workforce in 1974. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal sector language of the ADEA prohibiting “discrimination based on age” forbids retaliation for filing age discrimination complaints just as it prohibits age discrimination itself.

*12. House Passes Telework Bill

More progress on telework for federal employees happened on June 3, 2008, when a bill that would permit many federal employees to telecommute at least two days every two weeks was approved by the House on a voice vote. Not every employee can telecommute – you must be able to do your job outside of the Agency. Employees who handle classified information, have daily face-to-face contact with the public or who must use certain equipment to perform their jobs may not be eligible.

NTEU members with a full time work week are currently permitted to telecommute two days a week. NTEU Chapter 280 has made it clear that we will not re-open negotiations on the current flexiplace agreement unless the Agency is considering allowing employees more than two flexiplace days per week. In the December 2007 edition of Inside the Fishbowl NTEU reported that Johari Rashad of the Office of Human Resources (OHR) was tasked back in August 2006 to research the flexiplace (telework) policy at EPA and other federal agencies and recommend any needed revisions. It is rumored that Ms. Rashad’s recommendations were less restrictive than the current agreement and managers have asked her to take another look at her recommendations from the standpoint of addressing the comments provided by management which are reportedly calling for more restrictions rather than less. We have requested this report from her but to date all we have received is an email stating that she still reviewing the comments. And as we stated in December, unless management presents us with a proposal that actually gives us a more liberal telework agreement, we will not agree to re-open negotiations. This is another example of management not sharing information with the unions (as highlighted in Item #3 above). NTEU and OHR should be working cooperatively on the enhancement of telework for the benefit of our employees. Rather than cooperate, management obfuscates and we all lose.

Under the bill, federal agencies would be required to create and implement policies to enable eligible employees to work from home or away from their regular office as long as telecommuting did not hamper their performance or interfere with agency operations.

The legislation, H.R. 4106 expands and strengthens federal telework programs, and is similar to legislation approved in the Senate. Since telecommuting in the government has drawn substantial bipartisan support, it’s expected that differences in the House and Senate version can be readily resolved.

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said yesterday that "it is simply old-fashioned and outdated to think that employees cannot and will not be productive if they are at a work site other than their office."

Supporters of the House bill pointed to the Patent and Trademark Office and the Defense Information Systems Agency as agencies that encourage telecommuting and have suffered no decline in productivity.

In a recent non-scientific poll conducted on the NTEU web site, 73% of respondents said they had no regular telework schedules. “We need stronger leadership from federal agency managers to raise this number,” Kelley said.

For more information see The Federal Diary column by Stephen Barr in The Washington Post

*13. Assumptions for Every PARS Agreement by Bill Hirzy

NTEU Chapter 280 strongly recommends that every employee include in their PARS agreement the following language to protect their right to perform their work and have it appraised according to the Principles of Scientific Integrity (PSI) http://intranet.epa.gov/ord/scienceintegrity /

“Assumption 1. All my work assignments, all my work products, and all appraisals of my work will be in conformity with the Agency’s Principles of Scientific Integrity.”

The justification for the use of this assumption in all EPA employees’ performance plan comes from the following email that was sent to EPA employees by Administrator Carol Browner on March 28, 2000:

“In order for EPA to be an effective and efficient leader, and to uphold its mission of protecting human health and the environment, we must have the American public's trust and confidence that our scientific and technical activities are credible and of the highest quality. The National Partnership Council (NPC), comprised of both management and union officials representing Agency employees, took the lead to address this concern and developed the attached Principles of Scientific Integrity. This document affirms the responsibilities of EPA employees with respect to work production integrity, collegial respect and ethical practices.

“Principles of Scientific Integrity is a tool that the EPA community can use to increase the American public's trust and confidence in the integrity of EPA's activities and decision-making processes.

“It is essential that EPA's scientific and technical activities be of the highest quality and credibility if EPA is to carry out its responsibilities to protect human health and the environment. Honesty and integrity in its activities and decision-making processes are vital if the American public is to have trust and confidence in EPA's decisions. EPA adheres to these Principles of Scientific Integrity.

“EPA employees, whatever their grade, job or duties, must:”

There then followed a recitation of the Principles of Scientific Integrity (PSI) which can be found at the intranet cite above.

It is noteworthy that every Administrator since Carol Browner has endorsed the PSI.

*14. NTEU Seeks Expansive EEOC Rule

In recommendations to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), NTEU called for regulations that guard against arbitrary management decisions that can lead to discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act – especially when it comes to alternative pay systems. In line with the Supreme Court ruling, the EEOC is revising its regulations governing the burden of proof for disparate impact claims. Such claims are made where an employment practice has the effect of discriminating against older workers, regardless of whether the employer intends to discriminate. NTEU has vital experience with disparate impact issues.

*15. NTEU Pushes for Enhanced Transit Subsidies to Increase from $115 to $220 per Month for Feds

Just before the Congress adjourned for its Independence Day Recess, it passed important legislation that might help some federal employees avoid the current high gas prices while also promoting environmental stewardship.

The Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act was considered on the floor of the House. Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Tom Davis (R-VA) offered an amendment to increase the maximum reimbursement given to federal employees who use mass transit for commuting purposes from $115 to $220/month. The legislation also mandates that agencies offer this benefit. Previous NTEU supported legislation mandated that federal agencies in the Washington metropolitan area offer this benefit and made it at agency discretion elsewhere. NTEU has successfully negotiated this benefit for most of our members outside of Washington, DC. However, about 5,000 federal employees still receive no benefit and others receive less than the full amount.

NTEU will be working with the Senate to win passage of the bill, and is also seeking White House support. Until legislation is enacted, we will continue to aggressively negotiate full transit benefits for NTEU members where our contract does not already provide this benefit.

*16. White House/Congress Stand off Intensifies as Congress Seeks Key Documents on Greenhouse – Gas Emissions and Ozone Air Quality Standards from EPA and OMB

A June 21, 2008 Washington Post article recounts how the Bush administration invoked executive privilege, refusing to turn over documents requested by a House investigative Committee. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called off a contempt of Congress vote against EPA Administrator Steve Johnson and Susan Dudley, administrator for information and regulatory affairs at the OMB while Congress decides how to respond to this tactic.

The Administrator and the budget official are alleged to have not responded to subpoenas for documents concerning White House communications about intervention in the Administrator’s December decision to overrule EPA officials who favored granting California and 17 other states permission to mandate a reduction of vehicle emissions by 30% (by 2016.) The other issue in which Congress seeks documents of White House intervention concerns a March issuance by EPA of tougher health standards for smog, which were not as strict as levels recommended by an EPA science advisory board.

The EPA case is the latest in a series of showdowns between Congress and the Administration over the use of executive privilege to withhold documents that involve internal deliberations. Peter Shane, a law professor and executive privilege expert at Ohio State University, is quoted in the Post article as saying, “In the EPA case, Congress appears to be conducting an investigation of a policy decision that already has been made, a factor that he said ultimately could give lawmakers “an upper hand.”