Page images
PDF
EPUB

In the fiscal year 1949, the Commission only spent $108,000 representing 23/10 man-years. In other words, if 23 men devoted their full time to the work during the year. The Commission complained about the cost, but the cost does not seem to me to be a very large item. Mr. RILEY. That seems to be a very small price to do something in the name of justice and fair play.

Mr. WITHROW. I see you have a table here as to cases appealed. Now, when you say "appealed" do you mean appealed to this Board? Mr. RILEY. To the Board of Review, not the reviewing committee within the agency.

Mr. WITHROW. To the higher board?

Mr. RILEY. This is an extracurricular board set up as an impartial body, within the Civil Service Commission, and has jurisdiction over the finality of the original decisions, as reviewed by the committees in efficiency ratings within the agency.

Mr. WITHROW. Before this Board, how is the employee protected? Does he have his representatives there?

Mr. RILEY. He is protected, No. 1, by the fact it is a tripartite board. The Civil Service Commission supplies the chairman. The agency designates the second member and the employee, through recourse to a general election, may select and does select the third member. Therefore, he has at least a supposed advocate on the Board. But the impartial chairman is designated by the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. WITHROW. But he does not appear, outside of a written statement, or something like that? He does not have representatives? Mr. RILEY. That is true in the field, Mr. Withrow. Of course, if you want to send a representative, I am sure that the representative would be heard, but he may appear, just as I am appearing before you, if I were now appealing my rating, and subject to cross-questioning and all the other procedures of an informal court. They do not have court practice, but it is an informal proceeding.

Mr. WITHROW. In your opinion, this would do away with that entirely?

Mr. RILEY. This bill would abolish that lock, stock, and the wellknown barrel.

Mr. WITHROW. The fact of the matter is that in your tabulation, 50 percent of the decisions in the department are upset by this higher review board.

Mr. RILEY. That is the record.

In other words, these boards, even after the agencies have screened their own actions, have overturned half of the rating decisions.

Mr. WITHROW. I feel very keenly that these Governmental employees should be efficient, but at the same time you do not handle that the way you do it under the Railroad Labor Board, for instance, where there is a practical way of handling them; and particularly, you have to be jealous of the rights of these employees, because they cannot exercise a bit of economic pressure. They have to take it the way it is handed out to them.

Mr. RILEY. I predict, Mr. Chairman, that the time will come, that if you pass this bill, shortly-that is, with the repealer-when every one of you will be hearing from your constituents, or anyone else who wants to be heard with regard to their personal grievances, to

the effect: "The agency wants to cut my head off." But now in all good grace and perfect fairness, you can say "You have the machinery to use; go use it."

In other words, Congress has provided the machinery. You can say "Don't bring those things to us." But they will be given to you as high as you can stack them, if you give them this machinery.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that is a very timely observation. I am sure that will happen if this Board of Review is removed.

Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir; it happened before the Board was established, and it will happen again if it is removed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Riley.

Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Stanley Oliver, representing the International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's unions.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY W. OLIVER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, AND DRAFTSMEN, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee my name is Stanley W. Oliver. I am president of the International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen.

The membership which I represent is composed of technical and professional engineers, architects, scientists, and allied subprofessional workers, employed throughout the United States and the Territories. Several thousand of our members are employed in the Federal service at several of the agencies.

Mr. REES. How many are employed?

Mr. OLIVER. Around 2,000, I believe, Mr. Congressman.

Although I can in no way be considered an expert on the subject of efficiency rating systems I have had some experience with several of the systems used in the Federal service. I was an employee of the Navy Department for 10 years prior to assuming my present duties with the organization I now represent.

I have received ratings under the so-called uniform system, have acted as rater for employees whom I supervised and have served on an efficiency review committee which reviewed and approved all of the ratings made in the field activity where I was employed, and which also held hearings on efficiency appeals.

During the time that I have been interested in the affairs of Government employees I have heard many criticisms of the uniform system as well as the other efficiency rating systems which are in existence. Our organization is in accord that the efficiency rating systems should be improved.

If they cannot be measurably improved we believe that they should be eliminated altogether.

It is my understanding that the effect of H. R. 7264, if adopted in its present form, would result in the following:

(a) Elimination of the present "uniform" system as well as all other existing systems subject to approval by the Civil Service Commission.

(b) Each agency would be "authorized" rather than "required" to establish its own system, subject only to the approval of the Commission.

(c) Present appeal procedures through the Civil Service Appeals Board would be abolished with only a one-step appeal required within the agency.

The criticisms which have been brought before the conventions and conferences of this organization have been principally as follows:

(a) Lack of uniformity in the ratings, due to use of too many elements not germane to the job the employee was hired to perform. (b) Too many adjective ratings.

(c) Too great emphasis upon efficiency ratings with reference to personnel actions.

(d) Lack of confidence in efficiency appeals procedures administered within the agencies.

I do not believe that enactment of H. R. 7264 as presently drafted, would correct all of the above deficiencies. In considering the bill now pending before the committee it is respectfully requested that the committee give consideration to suitably modified language of H. R 7264 to provide the following features:

(a) Retain the feature of uniformity in rating systems, governmentwise, the exact system selected to be developed by the Civil Service Commission after consultation with representatives of the various agencies involved.

On that point, I would like to say that it certainly would not be a suggestion from me that all employees of all categories be rated uniformly, but we think wherever engineers, draftsmen, and architects are located, the ratings should be applied to them through the same system, regardless of what agency they might work in.

(b) Reduce the number of adjective ratings to three, consisting of "outstanding," "satisfactory," and "unsatisfactory."

(c) Reduce the number of rating elements to give greater emphasis to quantity and equality of performance on the job, rather than to minor personal characteristics.

(d) I concur with the principles stated in section 3 of H. R. 7264, that performance evaluation should not be the sole basis of any personnel action."

(e) Retain the present appeal procedure in which, if any employee is not satisfied with the results of his appeal at the agency level, he may appeal to the present board, having as its chairman, a Civil Service Commission representative. Further, we believe that the language in the law should specifically provide for equal right of appeal for all employees.

(f) Insofar as possible, remove the personal factor from the rating process. It is realized, of course, that in any undertaking where people must work together the personal factor cannot be completely eliminated. It is our belief that a marked reduction in the number of rating elements, in which the remaining elements bear more on factors of quantity and quality, rather than on an appraisal of personal qualities of the employee himself, would do much to bring about the desired result.

(g) It should be a mandatory requirement that whenever a position description is written or modified, a performance standard in outline form should be prepared and discussed with the employee.

All performance ratings should apply only to the performance indicated on the standard as being the job which the employee was hired to do. In this connection, it is my understanding that the Civil Service Commission has developed a standard of this kind which it uses for its own employees, and which could be used as a basis for a uniform program throughout the Government service.

I wish to thank the committee for affording me an opportunity to appear before it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Anthony D. Tieso, Navy Yard War Veterans' Association, Post No. 1, Boston, Mass.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY D. TIESO, NAVY YARD VETERANS' ASSOCIATION, POST NO. 1, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. TIESO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Anthony D. Tieso, and I am representing the Navy Yard Veterans' Association, Post No. 1, of Boston, Mass.

I am also a member of your impartial board of review, elected by the employees.

In 1946, we had a considerable number of appeals among the ungraded employees. The number of appeals ran into hundreds and thousands at that time, and it became necessary to do something to bring a uniform system of nongraded employees, as well as the graded employees, about. When I speak of the graded employees, I speak of the classified and unclassified employees.

Therefore, at that time I came down here before the various committees, seeking a solution for it. That solution was to amend the Classification Act of 1923, section 9, which would bring the nongraded employees into that same category. So we had the Honorable John W. McCormack, the Congressman in my district, introduce the bill. We had a hearing on it, and the late Senator David L. Walsh, who was in the Senate at that time, introduced a companion bill. At that time we created a uniform efficiency system in the nongraded employees group throughout the country.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make this as brief as is possible.

I have been employed for over 30 years in the Navy Department, in the navy yard, and have made a life study of the rules of the Commission, and I could probably answer a lot of questions involved under the new setup. But we are strongly opposed to section 4 of the bill which gives the right to the agencies once again to choose the system or not. In the old days, each agency could set up its own. efficiency system. That is what caused all the trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to continue the present impartial review board?

Mr. TIESO. That is correct. We want to retain what I would call a statutory board. It was well explained by the representative of the electricians, I believe, and he really stated the same sentiments I subscribe to, if I had the time to express that to you here today.

I think the efficiency ratings have proven themselves. I think the bill itself does improve the system, but then you spoil the entire system when you take that right away from the employee.

I say that the statutory board is a bill of rights to the employees, and should not be taken away.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions, I would gladly answer them.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gentleman file a written brief, explaining some of the things he has in mind.

The CHAIRMAN. If you desire to file a statement, the committee will appreciate it.

Mr. TIESO. If I would be permitted to draw up a statement, I should like to submit it for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. It will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement is as follows:)

NAVY YARD WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION, POST No. 1,
Boston, Mass., March 2, 1950.

Re: H. R. 7264, supplementary brief.
Hon. Toм MURRAY, Chairman

Chairman and members of Civil Service Committee, gentlemen, section 1: Whereas the Civil Service Commission's efficiency staff has made great progress over a period of years, have developed standards for every job in Government service, and should continue to do so, as they have more knowledge and have in the last 2 years put into effect simplified methods with the agencies' cooperation can do a better job.

Section 2: Requires that agencies submit their plans to the Commission for discussion and modification. Why not continue with the present method as this has had years of study and changes have been made from time to time. The needed changes would be very few and, as was required in the past, under existing laws, could be continued.

Section 3: With an appropriate appeals procedure as hereinafter reported, section 3 would not be needed.

Section 4: In our opinion, section 4 of the proposed bill should be amended to provide for the creation of impartial appeals boards, which should be composed of an official of the United States Civil Service Commission, an employee representative elected by the employees of that agency, and a representative of management. In this way the employees will be assured of a fair and impartial review.

Respectfully submitted.

ANTHONY D. TIESO, Legislative Representative.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will hear from the president of the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations, Inc., Mr. Woolsey W. Hall,

STATEMENT OF WOOLSEY W. HALL, PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, INC.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, as a petitioner, I am coming with a prayer that independent boards of review on efficiency ratings be not abolished; that efficiency ratings be made mandatory, and that the system that is established in whatever the agency, be first approved by the Civil Service Commission and be adhered to by the agency thereafter.

I would also like to suggest, please, that the Civil Service Commission's hand should be strengthened. If this Board does not want to administer the civil-service law, that is a matter of administration, but here we have a board of men whose only object in life is personnel management. The Secretary of Treasury is engaged in finance, and

« PreviousContinue »