GovernmentExecutive.com

The Defense Department and unions reached an agreement Wednesday to delay implementation of the National Security Personnel System's labor relations portions until February.

Government and union lawyers filed a joint request for the postponement at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The agreement is meant to make it unnecessary for unions to seek a temporary restraining order. Such an order would halt implementation until a judge has ruled on the merits of the case.

A coalition of 10 labor unions earlier this month sued the Defense Department over final regulations for NSPS, a system designed to streamline labor relations and replace the General Schedule with market- and performance-based compensation. The department published the regulations in the Nov. 1 Federal Register.

At the time, the Pentagon said it planned to implement the labor relations portion after a 30-day period of congressional oversight.

But the department now has agreed to delay reforms concerning employee appeals, labor-management relations, override authority for existing contracts, narrowing of negotiable topics and mandatory removal offenses. The creation of an internal National Security Labor Relations Board is included under labor-management relations.

The parties asked Judge Emmet Sullivan to set a hearing for the week of Jan. 9, but Sullivan is free to set the hearing at his own convenience.

Under the agreement, Defense still will be able to implement a few minor portions of NSPS before February. Most notably, the department can continue to train employees on the workings of the new system, and it can release implementing issuances, which provide details on how to carry out the regulations. Those issuances cannot take effect until Feb. 1, however.

The American Federation of Government Employees, which is part of the 10-union coalition, said the agreement benefits both sides.

"We're heartened that the matter can now be heard on its merits in good time," AFGE assistant general counsel Joe Goldberg said. "It will be heard quickly and be placed before a judge in a timely fashion."

NSPS spokesperson Joyce Frank said the department was satisfied with the development.

"We are pleased to have reached this agreement in an effort to reach an expedited resolution and are hopeful the Court will agree to the stipulation," Frank said.

In addition to the February delay, the two sides agreed on a timeline for legal action. If the unions file a request for a preliminary or permanent injunction, they must do so by Nov. 23 and the government must file a response by Dec. 8. The union would then need to file a reply by Dec. 22 and the government, by Jan. 5.

Sullivan was assigned a previous lawsuit over the Pentagon's process of creating the system, but dismissed it without prejudice to wait for the final regulations to be issued. He was reassigned this lawsuit because it is related to the previous one.

COMMENTS

• This whole NSPS package was brought forward to keep bright productive employees in the intelligence arena. Current pay scales are low and keeping these individuals and bringing in additional star performers was unlikely unless some changes were made and more freedoms within the hiring and retention efforts were made. That was logical, and a valid intent. What is not logical or cost effective, is to waste millions of dollars to re-invent a structure which has been fine tuned over a period of years and that works. This training package on NSPS, which is worthless and provides no real answers, has cost the taxpayer millions. When Congress asked for the bottom line on cost, no federal agency could give a straight honest answer. Enough! Get smart America, this is a runaway train. Who was authorized to let a contract for developing this training? A federal judge ruled the system illegal, and the Defense Department thumbs its nose at U.S. justice system and says "we are going ahead with it." How bizarre is that? Nancy Posted December 13, 2006 6:43 PM
• PAS Lackland: Sorry, already told my legislators how I feel. They didn't listen. About what I expected from Georgia, a pair of Bush-worshipping Republicans in the Senate and the useless Rep. Jim Marshall in the House. They basically said "we don't like it either but we don't have the guts to do anything about it." Sen. Saxby Chambliss wrote back to me later about the pay freeze and didn't even pretend to answer my questions (one of which was "if we're so broke why are we wasting money on NSPS?"), the others didn't even bother with a response. Better luck to the rest of you. GovExec.com reader Posted November 29, 2005 1:12 PM
• I agree with Dave, go for the permanent injunction!!! The government has been dishonest and deceptive from the get go. They ignore judicial rulings and refuse to bargain. The government would have never agreed to a union meeting unless its lawyers felt they might lose in court. I think there should be a congressional hearing on the real reason for all the deception and slight of hand. Someone needs to find the truth and expose the lies. It's really a simple task. Send an e-mail to all government employees (like the one asking for input about how pay-for-performance should rate people). Then publish the results. I'll stake my civil servant future on the results. Would England put his job on the line to learn the truth??????? Gil in Texas GovExec.com reader Posted November 18, 2005 9:16 AM