GovernmentExecutive.com

The Office of Personnel Management has published new best practices for handling disciplinary actions prompted by discriminatory behavior or retaliation against whistleblowers.

The advice, compiled in a Sept. 30 report, is based on interviews with officials at agencies that held employees accountable in whistleblower and anti-discrimination cases in 2006, and received top leadership ratings on the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey. OPM did not name the agencies consulted.

"The United States and its citizens are best served when the federal workplace is free of discrimination and retaliation," the report stated. "In order to maintain a productive workforce that is fully engaged in the many important missions of the government, the rights of employees, former employees and applicants for federal employment must be steadfastly protected and those who violate these rights must be held accountable."

The guidance was required by the 2002 Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act, which regulates how agencies respond to and report bias and whistleblower cases. Agencies have until the end of October to explain to congressional leaders, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. attorney general and the OPM director how they plan to implement the best practices.

The review found a correlation between disciplinary action against employees found to have engaged in discrimination or whistleblower retaliation and achieving high scores on certain human capital survey questions about agency leadership. Agencies that punished employees ranked well when survey respondents were asked if they could "disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal," and respondents gave all but one of the disciplining agencies above-average scores when asked whether "prohibited personnel practices...are not tolerated."

OPM recommended that agency leaders and managers take more responsibility for enforcing whistleblower and anti-discrimination rules and encourage relationships among human resources, equal opportunity and legal offices to guarantee consistent actions and accountability.

But the report also suggested that officials consider alternatives to immediate suspension or termination if a long-time employee has a clean record. In such circumstances, the report said, it might be appropriate to allow the employee to undergo some kind of treatment or training after an incident, with the understanding that a future violation would result in an automatic penalty that could not be appealed.

OPM encouraged agencies to train supervisors and managers on a range of communications issues so they can spot impending problems and defuse them before they rise to the level of complaints.

"Sometimes referred to as 'soft' skills, interpersonal communication and associated proficiencies are essential components of strong, effective supervision and management," the report stated.

COMMENTS

• Before I left DoD, I had a discrimination complaint going. I was forced to use DoD's "remediation" process before filing an official EEO complaint. That is a joke and should be eliminated. During this step, the agency paid some joker from D.C. to talk to me and try to discourage me from filing a complaint, where I had a legitimate one. His time with me was spent, passing on insults and threats from the management (while they hid under their desks everyday as I walked by), telling me how much of his time I was wasting, and even telling me that they were going to do something illegal to me (like force me into a billet that was a demotion that I didn't apply for) if I don't drop this complaint. All the while - the CO of the agency made himself totally unavailable. How can you win when the opposition makes all the rules? Julia Chase Posted October 15, 2008 8:36 AM
• I wasted 2 years of my life going through the whistleblower process. While I'm sure OPM means well, the reality is that these guidelines are worthless. Management defends whistleblowers right up until they are actually confronted with the real thing. I mean, it's easy to support something in the abstract at no risk. Yet, how about when someone files a complaint that could make the organization look bad or result in disciplinary action against a fellow manager? That's when the OPM guide book gets tossed and they do everything possible to discredit and crush the employee. Reading the OPM guidebook it's clear to me that they don't understand the dynamics of how these events unfold. It's not enough to just say "do the right thing" because most people won't when it comes time ... unless there are real consequences for not doing so. And there aren't. Sam Posted October 8, 2008 11:48 AM
• If you don't care what OPM says and/or does Ken Huffman, then you shouldn't work for the Federal Govt! YOU missed the mark Dan Ketter. This isn't about NSPS, DACS Better. OPM did not invent NSPS- Congress did and left the how-tos to OPM. Get your information right before you sound off. Did any of you read the report? This is a compilation of survey results and advice for those managers who care to follow what has proven effective in other federal agencies. This isn't a policy or regulation, it's sharing information about things that worked somewhere else and could possibly work for your agency. Take the blinders off and look at the big picture- there's a great big Federal Govt world out there. You may find something you like. Carrie McFaul Posted October 8, 2008 1:02 PM