A BILL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP64B00346R000400150008-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 28, 2004
• Sequence Number: 8
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
A DILL
To provide for the poyment of compensation ond oration of
eroloyment benefite to certain Federal officere and eniployees
improperly deprived thereof, and for other purposee.
13
t enctod tho uite ttnd floteo oLavrotativon of the
United atetes of America in Converie acqzbled that this Act may be
cited as the "Deck Pay Act of 1961".
STIC 2. For the purpose of this Act the term "agency" mows
(1) the executive departments) (2) the independent; establishments in
the executive branch, including corporatione tthelly owned or controlled
by the United States) (3) the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts) (4) the Library of Corke'ressj (5) the Genera Accounting Office)
(6) the Government Printing Office) (7) the Office of the Architect of
the Capitol) (3) the Botanic Garden; and (9) the government of the
Diotrict of Columbia.
SEQ.
An officer or employee of an ageney the, on the basis
of an adminictrative determination or a tielely appeal, is found by
appropriate authority under applicable laws or regUlations to hos been
subject to an unjustified or unwarranted peroonnel action uhich has with,.
drawn or reduced any part of his salary, vagee, or other compensation aball
be entitled epon correction of the action to be paid for the period that
the action wee in effect in an amount comonsurate trith the amount he would
normally have earned had he not been subject to the action, lose any amounts
earned by him through other employment daring such period. (b) For all
other purp000ri, inolucling the accumulation, of leave not in exoeas of the
menteram pree,Irlhed by law or regulation, he chall be dmmed to have rendered
elleerioseeltfeleew:20.04/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
SBC. 40 The Vnitod States Civil
co Commisoion m
atioue to carry out tho provisions of this Act.
scribe
Section 6 (b) of the Act of Auvat 24, 19120 Oh. 382p .37
Stat. 5550 ea wavaded, (5 11.5.0. 652 (b), and the. last 71 worda of tho
third proviso of section 1 of the Act or Ancust 26 1950, Oh. 803 64
Stat. 746, aro repealed.
This Act Applios to personnel at1ona eiictod on or after
the data or its enactment. The provisions or ?law repealed undor acction
5 or this Art continuo in force with recard to so ions taken prior to
the offective data or thia Act.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
SECTION ANALIS
Meat of the situations which could give rise to the retroaotive
pAyment of compensation or enployment benefits under the provisions
of this draft bill Aro already covered by the back pay provisions of
Public Law 623, 80t4 Congreee, Public Law 733, 81st Congress, the
powers of the Civil Service Coomission under the Veterans' Preference
Act, and a number of decisions of the Comptroller General interpreting
these authorities. The back pay provisions of this draft bill, however,
eetild be more uniform and in some cases more equitable than those now
available. In addition) the coverage of the draft bill is doeiened to
encompass all employees of the executive branch and certain other aeencies.
Significantly) the draft bill neither requires any agency to review any
kind of personnel action, nor defines or restricts the nature of corrective
actions themselves. Moreover) the draft bill dace not modify the procedural
requirements of any formal system of appeals. All the draft bill requires
is that ellen) a right of appeal has been specifically granted by law or
regulation? or where management on its own initiative has discovered a
personnel action which in all equity should be reviewed, any corrective
action as a consequence extended to a Federal officer or employee with
respect to adjustnent of compensation or employment benefits must bo
retroactive in its effect, complete in its remedies, and consistent in
its application.
Section 3. of thie draft bill authorizes the use of a short or
populInalle in citing this Iegialation.
Section 2 of the draft bill defines nagency" in sufficiently broad
terms?M:0Mo all parts of the executive branch, the government of
the District of Calleabia, and those other establishments of the Federal
Goverment which look to the executive breach for personnel manareemont
leadership.
t 3 of the draft bill covers all officers and employees
of tloucics encoepaesed, by the definition set out in section 2.
This mad include all persona in both the competitive and excepted
civil service.
Section 3 of the draft bill in referring to "administrative
detereinatio0 means a decision made by appropriate authority on its awn
initiative as opposed to a decision 'which it has been required to rake
in order to dispose Of a formal appeal. The purpose of this provision
is to grant agencies the right at their own option to correct any real
injustices in the back pay area which they identify themselves., especially
where no avenue of appeal may be open to the individual involved.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
In/ of tho draft bill in referring to "timely appeal"
means (1) a rcquest properly lalde to an agency or to the Civil Service
Cominaion socing roconoiderntlen of an official personnel notion
which hao affected. on elplwo adversely (2) initiated by an mployco
or his roprosentailvo (3) undor an appeal syptem or procedure establishxd.
by law or regulation (4) which requeot ha o boon accepted by the authority
administering the particular appeals oystail or procedure involved. This
provision of itself creates no 17011 coneopts of timclineeo. On this point
it relies entirelr on the practices establiohed in such ?thar laws and
rogulationo dealing with clployee appeals no may. now oz.lot or later cone
into being. The purp000 of thio prevision is to prevent cuployeas from
prOcifling rrt*,,ale clatns for back pay whore they therwelves hal,*0 Slept on
their rightn.
p.,p4.10,11 W. of the draft bill in using the phrase, "unjustified
or tuwarronted perrionnol action", follows tho language of Public Law
623, C,Oth Congress, the prinary back pay authority at the time this
propooal was drafted, 1211 personnel actiono in the adranictration of
tho Federal perconnol oyste,As aro taken undor COMO authority. Each ouch
personnel action ohould be intended to bo a proper oxoreine of the powers
ontabliched by the particular law or regulation under latch the action
lo token. Noortheloml, OCOMlionally errors aro iado in tho exorcise of
those power or mel actions which are found to reflect ouch errors
may be defective on equitable or pr000aural cruundE, or both. The ruling
interpretation of the phratle, "unjustified or unwarranted" with reference
Lo advoroe actions in the currant adninictration of Public Law 623, 80th
Congress, encompasses both equitable and procedural considerations fol.
lowing the deoloicnu of the Court of Claim in ajx,42x:_xl 11,1. El., 117
0.01. A and Garcia V. U. S., 123 0.01. 722, and of the aaaptrollor Gon-
oml in 34 C.G. 568.
&s)t);-1.9a.110 of the draft bill in referring to "appropriate author-
ity' neans that agency, office, or official empowered under applicable
law or regulation to correct or direct the correction -of the unjustified
or unwarrantcd action. In sm.:to oases this could be tho Civil Service Ovia.
mission es eatablishod for on.12r,ple? in the Veterans, Preference /tot. In
nany instancoo, ouch authority would bo found at SCLIO level of agency
nanagement as defined inapplicablo regulations and delegations of au-
thority thereunder,
uses the phrase, "opplioablo laws or regulations," to
ref or to the 1aue and rogalationr4 which provide the banin for oporationo
underVie 'Federal porsonnkA tYt0311,9* The draft bill looko to tb000 la170
and roc;utationc which c;arit now or may later come into effect:
(1) to r..ovide avonnen and pr000draieio for the 1-T0?1)11de:r-
ation of unjuntified or unwarranted porceanel actions.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
(2) to provide the lo,x1 bocio or trking propor
poroonna actiona and for corrocting unjuoti
Xlcd or unvumnbod ono?.
(3) to ost,ablich the i.ocuo of the authority to
ocz:acto iripxtper action.
Tho phraco, 'under applicablo latnn d ropIationo", ban boon
plecod inaica?co. hi tho draft bill ;In order to innave y01'0=1100
to tho vard "fouru.1" end tho phraco "oppropriate ant hority"? Xt pro..
codea tho phreco, unnju2ltified or nawarraptc.;:d peroannol action", in
ardor to vold ?bho iouloca inconUotuncy th:Lch woo.d bo nuccoatod by
roforonco to "an unjuatified or untr:aranted por,::annol aotion under
appropKato la= or rc:culationo". As indicated previouj.y, howovor,
all proper poraonnol actions rolloct en emmino of authority undor
approprieto low or razalation.
Sefttop. (a.,), of the draft bill doos nah enunorato the ppoOlfio
;mon actiono covered because it
1 13 11,0t the cativo Of the
eetion, nor liow 1L I..n lctbelocip vial,ch is imorLant hero. What i nicnif..
icant iG tho proptiety of tho action and vizother or not tho employe?
affected had his oonpouraation reatced as a of:now:117.0mo. tInjuotifiod or
unuarranbed coparationa, (inclukling retirownta), nunpc.maiono and
deraotionn 1:111 conntituto most of the situations ilwolved.
of the draft bill in tho smile scArlt (loos not
ontzterao ?,;11 liic types of cornctivo action Vaich would count tuto
appmpriato correction of the variouo typos of unjnotifiod or 1z 1c
porconnol ction ttioh rmy erica. Tho cong.wal tori "corroction" in the
tont: of the Oral% 1.431 Ilan boon ucad dolib?ratoly to ciaauro that the
proper arldniatrative to .bion, whatover it inke:ht bo conolatcat with
epplicablo lawn or ro-ulationos, bo taken before a back pay entitlortont
in creatod.
Cortion (a) of the draft bill ontablichea n ontiticilc:lt to book
pay in my Ihero porLeatiol action Inich 1T.s totrainated or
docreasal the compensation of a rcacral orflour or caploy,,,,e subcoquently
found unjustified or unuarrantiod and corrected by appropriate authority.
For cL Lr Cm four ontonticao for an ontitaoracnt to back pz.v, undor thin
Act aye COI) out bole zit
1. An official po connol action must have been tacon
which r..xlucel Or dimtatehod novae part of on
indiviCnolt3 111:1C04 lt7, IMC,00, or other ccrponoa-
'Lion fraa l'oclozU cvrloynent. In other womb, in
oL4ct, miothirk:7 nuaL have boon taken away.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
2. The personnel action in question Must have been made
the subject of review by appropriate authority either
because of a timely appeal or because appropriate
authority on its own initiative decided to review
that action. In other words, the specific action
which precipitated the employee's loss must have been
re-oxaminedi
3. The personnel action in question must have been found
by appropriate authority to be unjustified or unwarranted.
4. A corrective action consistent with applicable laws or
regulations must have been authorized by appropriate
authority as a consequence of its decision.
gaegoLlial of the draft bill, therefore, establishes for pay
purposes the principle that an employee should be made whole following
the correction of an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action which
reduced his compensation in some way. As would be defined in detail in
the regulations, the adjustment in compensation would cover everything
to which the employee normally would have been entitled. The regulations
necessarily would require that the adjustment in compensation recognize
any obvious things in the normal course of events which would have
affected the amount of compensation. With respect to reducing that amount,
these would include situations, such as: death before final adjudication
of an appeal, separation or furlough as a result of reduction in force,
transfer to another agency, and imprisonment for crime. With respect to
increasing the amount of compensation, the draft bill assures credit for
increments such as periodic within-grade increases and general pay raises
to which the. employee would have been entitled had he not been subject to
the unjustified or unwarranted action. Public Law 623, 80th Congress, and
Public Law 733, 81st Congress, unfortunately prevent crediting these in-
crements in computing the amount of back pay. On the other hand, both
Public Law 6230 80th Congress, and Public Law 733, 81st Congress, are cur-
rently interpreted as including in a back pay computation the premium pay
which an employee normally would have earned. To preserve this inter-
pretation the phrase "would normally have earned," which appears. in .
Public Law 733, 81st Congress, and which was discussed by the Comptroller
General in 34 Comp, Can. 382, has been repeated in the draft bill. '
Sectkenjial of the draft bill, following the historical precedents
in this area, provides that the amount of back pay to which an employee
would be entitled would be reduced by whatever amount he earned through
"other employment" during the period the action was in effect. The term
"other employment" is taken from Public Law 623, 80th Congress, in order to
assure a continuity of interpretation on this point. Both the Court of
Claims and the Comptroller General view "other employment" as encompassing
only that employment engaged in to take the place of the employment the
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
employee had prior to tho action against him. Tide interpretation vas
discussed by tho Court in Jackson v* U.S., 121 C.C1. 405, end by the
Ca4trollor General in 32 Comp* Oen. )100. Thcrofere, If an employee
had boon separated from hie position, this mount-would be the difference
between
that ids govornmont intone should have boon and what he actually
onvned in an employment obtainod to tare tho placo of his government job.
If ho had boon denoted, the mount to which he would bo entitled would
be the difference betWeen vhat his incem &toad have been in tho proper
grado and what lb actually wns at tho_lowor grade.
Section 3T(b) of the draft bill in using the sentence, "For ell
othoi77:57Ms, :alluding the accualulation of leave not in exceed of the
ramirana practribod by law or rogUlation, he shall bo doeMed to have-
rendered cervico during the period", provides for the cemplete restoration
of seniority, service credit toward rotimnont? lire insurances, health
insurance, end all other benefits'of tflploymont uhich.iazy have been
affected by the action, This id consistent with tho oUrront adminietratien
of these matters follouing a court or Civil SOXVICO Coa.l.UbiOn restoration
order* In addition, leave accumulation,. mcludod specifically from the
back pay provisions of Public Lca/623, 00th Conroe, would be authorited
uniforMly by this draft bin following the precedent of the more recent
Public Law 733, out Congress* The usual ceilings on leave accumulation
would be obsorved, ad proscribed by tho lar or ro3ulation covering the
particular leave system to which tho employee is subject*
option 4 of tho draft bill authorizes the Civil Service Cconisjon
to ntE6 cua regulationd an maybe necessary' to carry out the provisions
of this proposal much as the 0011111301011 regulates in certain other pay
areas* Day to day application of those regulations to individual oases
woad be tiwrosponolbility of the agencies concerned. Tho General
Accounting Office would resolve specific quostione in individual cases
as it does other matters involving claims and demands against the Govern
mont of the United Statos.
Section of the draft bill repeals the back pay provision of Public
Law 63, &u'1Concross and Public Law 733, 61st Congress,
Section. 6 of the draft bill provides that the ieaue Tall bo
offeciTaran7rospect to personnel actions taken on or after the date
of its enactnento It is not athiniotrativoly feasible to make this
proposal retroectiVo without limitation. IloWever$ there is no more reason
for nakint; it retroactive to one date than to another. For these reasons
tho provisions of the draft bill would be applicable to cases arising
because of unjustified or unwarranted actions taken on or after its date
of enactment. Prior cases would be settled under current authorities*
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
- ? Statrelent of 'd
erpope en. Jeotification
of
? A Draft to provide rot the peyment of COIVOriElati011
and- restoration of oteployeent benefito to certein -Federal
- officers and -employees improperly deprived thereof, - ?
Pu2:22m
To assure that all classes of
be treated equitably and uniforaly
ploymentibenofits as a consequence
or unwarranted personnel actions.
Federal officers and erploycee eau
with roopect to cempensation and cm-,
of action? taken to correct unjustified
Justifioation
This legislative proposal consolidates what is generally referred to
as "back pay" authority into one logical, equitable, and oomprehensive
statement of entitlement with reepect to compeneation and eeployment
benefits. It is more than a codification of current back pay authorities
because those authorities, Valle adequate in rawly reepeots, nay not be
applied uniformly to all slar eituationa and do not a:Cora odepletoly
consistent melodies. The proposal is not entirely now, however, because
it hns largely selected the beet elments froi these familiar authorities,
welded theee into one principle, and proposed the use of that principle in
every instance where a question of back pay can be raised. Briefly this
principle holds that an employee is entitled to be nada thole whenever an
erroneous personnel action which has terminated or reduced hie compeneation
is corrected by appropriate authority. Significantly this proposal is not
concerned with the substance of appeal rights, the structure of the appeals
process, or the preoise nature of corrective actions.
This proposnl could justify itself with principles of fair play or
philocophical concepts of equity and justice. Fortunately for purposes
of brevity, this is not necessary. It is aloe unneceseary- to recount how
the concept of back pay hae been widely accepted in industry. The simple
fact is that the trend in law, regulation, and interpretation denonettates
clearly that the Congress, the Courts, the agencies, and the Comptroller
General havo been thinking alone these linos for a long tine with particular
eephosis on the past 15 years.
Dackermed ed: Current Authorities
In 1947 it was pointed out in Congress, according to tho
legislative history, that a "glaring loophole in the present law"
eldsted if an enployee in the competitive service who successfully
availed hineelf of a right of appeal could not alwayrj be relebursed
for the compenention he lost while his appeal was pending. In .94.B.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
after consulting the Civil Service Cossdesion nnd others, Congreas
responded to this need by enacting Publis Law 623, 80th Congress, as
an amendmont to the Lloyd-LaFollette Act.
Public Law 623, 80th Congress, authorizes back pay in non-security
cases involving improper separations end:suspensions of nonveternns with
civil service statue in the competitive service and all veterans wile
have completed their trial or probationary period. The amount of pay is
computed at the rate the employee was receiving at the time of the
proper action and covers the entire period the action was in effect.
Leave ataumulation covering the same period, however, use excluded from
the other remedies to which an employee was entitled under the Act.
In 1950, with the passage of Public Law 733, 81st Congress, Congress
acted again in the back pay area, this time protecting executive branch
employee suspended or terminated in erroneous security actions. The
amount of hack pay is computed as under Public Low 623, 80th Congress;
however, agency heads are authorized to determine whether the employee
will'be paid for all or part of the period of erroneous suspension or
removal. interestingly, agency practice under this law has bassi to
authorize payment for the entire period almost withoutsWeeption. More
complete as to benefits, Public Law 733, 81nt Congress, has been inter-
preted to permit leave accumulation covering the period of the erroneous
action,
The third major source of back pay authority is the Veterans'
Preference Act of 124144 as amended. This Act .11013 been interpreted as
authorizing hack pay in cases involving improper demotions of veterans
who have. completed a trial or probationary period and in cases prising
as a result of erroneous reduction in force actions whether or not the
employees concerned are veterans.
In recent years the trend of Comptroller General's decisions inter..
preting these authorities has been toward greater flexibility. This
trend notwithstanding, however, it in apparent that these authorities,
as now stated., provide an inadequate basis for a full solution to the
back pay problem. If the problem is to be corrected, new legislation
must b? theanswer.
The Need for Change
Most back pay situations in the Federal service are already covered
in some way by current authorities. This factor itself tends to demon.
strate that the principle of back pay as a part of corrective action is
vell established. It suggests further that the reason the back pay
picture is net complete today is more a matter- of oversight than lnten-
tional orrangemsnt. It in apparent that whenever Congress has faced the
problesa of back pay, it hos never intended its action to discriminate
asainst any employee who could build an equitable claim. Circumstances,
unfortunately, have led to a piecemeal approach to the back pay problem.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
-3-.
As a consequence, veterans are now afforded broader back pay
benefits than nonveterans and at any given moment there are still
many veterans and nonveterana alike who could not be awarded back
pay at all except in the correction of erroneous reduction in
force actions. This number would include all employees serving
probationary or trial periods, many nonveterans who are employed
by their Ck)vernment outside the competitive civil service, and
all nonveterans in the competitive service in actions of demotion
for cause.
Private relief legislation in individual cases cannot answer
the problem, because it tends to discriminate against tae person
who does not seek special consideration beyond the remedies avail-
able to all. In the interests of both uniformity and equity,
therefore, there is a strong case for improving the present back
pay authorities. The case is particularly strong when it is
recognized that the step toward abetter back pay authority is a
small one in terms of costs and administrative adjustments. No
great number of cases should add appreciably to current costs and
the handling of all back pay cases would be little different from
current procedures.
Impact of the Current Proposal
There are four features to this legislative proposal Which
should be kept in mind in order to understand what it is designed
to accomplish and, just as important, what it is not designed to -
do:
1. The Comprehensive Nature of this Authority. The
propose assures t a ack pay pro ection would be .
available to a Federal employee whenever an. unjusti-
fied or unwarranted personnel action which diminished
his pay is corrected in his favor. The proposal does
not attempt, however, to specify the precise nature
of corrective actions. It requires only that the
unjustified or unwarranted action be corrected before
..an entitlement is created. It is inherent in the wile
of the term "correction" that the administrative
action referred to must be one which is consistent
with applicable laws and regulations. The ?protection
does not hinge on the operation of any particular
systems of appeals, but would be available as a con-
sequence of the operation of any system of appeals.
In addition, where no avenue of appeal is available,
an agency itself may award back pay to en employee merely
by acknowledging that its action affecting the employee
adversely was unjustified or unwarranted and correcting
it.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
f Incone? tally thins sisy hoppon tO
(741.7aoyeo on the job %doh may hav..
potoritiol offset on hie finances 4.. a hope-for
promotion, or job classifieation upsrading may be denied or
del,med, a tranefer to a now location 11144r be more cotpeueive
then anticipated, a fres official pall:int; opaoe may be lost,
eta. Thilurpposol rot (p.p. TiA vitt
Dort pu,vposi) ortliT.AT rairay. portal-ran
,on y to milo en omployee vholo from a pay and benefitt,
point of view following it docioion to correot an unjustified
or unwarranted personnel action scarlet him.
To encomplieh its purpose this proposol Ames the otest of
diminimhe4 inoomott whioh must be applied in every potontial
bask pay wituation before en ent4t1ement le established under
thin authority. The letjuetifiod or unwarrantod personna
actions in offect, met have token awny moms part of the forma
oolorys Wages, or other componeation of the employee affootod*
In othor vordei if no pert of the employee's 603.11.17, 1i1aa0011
other compensation aet Goverment attiloyee was actuelly
diminichad by the improper ontiono tiler? can be no clan to
baok pr 'Own that lotion to corrooted?
5.17. ,t,tim.? Xn ordor to preserve his
o co,orovse7 inder this proposal would be
;revival to oLte the riOlte of appeal open to him in a
timoly :Renner, r ommtples, en emloyeo whose position we
downgraded would 0 his right to domand bac!: pay %Ilene he
made a timely end ouncossfa ot2ort; to caveat the dowarading
action. Should that akar:yes be promoted 60114time later in a
routine roallocation of his positions oh rsalleentiori woad
have no back pv implications*
Ti 5: tan tnitiabpres By pormitting c.n agent)*
owiiiraorminstion in cortin
?),nted personnel notions this authority
roIczco zo net/ mite of flexibility wIlich strengthen
the co rtto poN40310 of rasnazement. Virsts it on sgenv
&movers it hos inadvvrtontly ta%en en unjustified or sm..
warranted notion, it mad be Xreflt to Correct th *Oa=
irvecantely on Ito out initiativo with on appropiAate pay
adjustnont* Thin avoids the loss of time ,and resources inVOlVed
in on oppea1, over a mattor Voloh the rinoy may fool in advance
should be (Jett:Loa in tho cvloyoel 19 favor. Veconds when an
asenoy desires to extond back poy adjustraento uniformly to art
porsons in *Um 00:Ata eilVartutinnaefil itch n appota th140r1 by tany
one oZ the persons involved, it woad bo free to do so on its
own initiative.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
recent case, for example, a group of veteran in
board ,lobo successfully appealed to the Civil
te Comml.ssion their dcrotions co a repult of job
classification downgradings and were awarded back pay,
A nonVetoren mrker in tho same group, 1,J1ie had no right
to appoal to the Commianixm, benefited by the mibsequent
reinstatement to grade but vraci dcniod Tha back, pay ad.
justment his associates received, because the agency had
no authority to pay him. This proposed authority would
have permitted the agency, had it destro.d, to authorizo
the enao kixzd of adjustment to all of the employees
involved.
It ry difficult to a esn the cost in:volved in this
posod bill, This is not bemuse these costs would constitute a
major elTenditure. Instead it is boctluee "added" cost in tho
in-
oz'ntion needed while nadily available information un.fortunatoly
reveas little about current Cost. Today agencies generally absorb
the cents of compensating employees entitled to back pay. Under
the proposed bill, no change in this is envisioned.
Potentially some agencies my have a comothat larger limber of
caeca involving back pay altitlement than they have st present.
On the other hand with such clear.cut and mmprehoncivo entitlement
established, agencies would have an added incentive to conduct their
appeal and review activities in a timely tad expeditious manor in
order to minimize the cost of cla entitlements. Ibreover, the
draft bill. vxruld tend to limit the size of retroactive payments
because employees who neglect to use their appeal rilits? if any,
in a timely muiner would lose their ritiit to demand back pay.
In the benefits area it would be virtually impossible to
"coot" the a.oeumu.lation of leave covering poriods of improper sop.
oration or susponsion as authorized by. the draft bill. Tztlmn at
different td.roes, leave hen cuseroat values. In addition, Vine
ticrIninal lump.sum annual leave payments can reproseat a cash
expaase, stoic los.vo should have no actual ':faltte Unle OS tho employee
is M. It would sem rezleon4lble to annum*, therefore, that this
legislative proposal tovld croato no now costs or ineonveniences
in the leave area rrnro burdensoms than those agencies are adjuulting
to now.
Those benefits.to Which erployees a utitled on a contributory
basis, such as retirement, life insurance, arid heal.th insurances
would not c-)nstitato added costs under the draft bill. Tho employe
would continuo to be required tl make up his back contributions,
along with his taxes, for Vny poriod during 'which they wore not
withhold. This requimaent stems from the fact that where an en
ployApptavealatteftetease)2094102103f Gla-RIBR64Beed4690.0C14001115.00(708
having "rendered service he also assumes a responsibility fox'
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
the ob1ic.tiono which that ocrvice woad hwe inpoced.
Xt in about ao difficult to ostinato tho number of new book pay
entitlements .14iich woad arise under thin prop000l on it is to acmes
tho value of th000 entitlesmato. The size of the now croup? covered
in acme instanceo is very 'aro?. Oonverooly, however, the potential
number of brotk pay caves likely to rice from th000 groups, orporionoo
tale uo, is corpritinoly molls For wimple, the now proposal would
protect career nonvotorono in 0131100 of deototion for canoes On oppool,
the Cormisoion reviews the procedural adequacy of ouch actiono in the
competitivo oervioes Although there are about 1,000,000 nonveterane
in the conpotitiv ervice, there was not one appellant in these cir?
ounotanceo between July 1, 1959, tInd Juno 30, 1960, who would have been
entitled to back poy because of Cominsion actions We do not know how
rimy such moos wore handled at agency lovas under eirounotonces hirh
would have involved back poy under this propouals We would have to
carom though that tho amber was fairly small because the Cormiosion
so rarely receiveo appeals of thin kind.
Nonvoter= onploy000 in exeoptod positions for the Mist time
road be ontitl.ed to back pay if they loot cony:mention as a concequence
of unjuotified or unwarranted suopensions, ceparations or &motions for
cauoo. At present, t.,/n000 onployeeo, and there are about 100,000 of
then, have no appeal to the civil Service Commission in such actions,
ec P.00110/03 have considerable flexibility in actions offoctino their
tenor?. Under this proposal, therefore, there looad be only as nony
nou bask pej entitlement oases involvim these employees an procedures
under aoency control would generate.
This proposal would as? covor, for the first time, friployeos
servino probationory or triol periodos At my one tines there are
probably between 100,000 end 175,000 ouch ',omens throuohout the eery-ices
The proposal requires, however, that there cm be no ontitlenent to back
pay vrithout a Pinar*: that the adverse notion involved was unjustified
or unwarranted. Cc pared to poroons who have comraeted their trial
period, the appea riohts of probationaxy employe= aro very limited.
naturally the would tend to keep don the =ober of entitlement came.
Under 000tion 2001(0(0 of the Comiociont a lleculations, the
Ocrodonion coneidero oppeale or tor nations based on conditions arlein
prior to the oppointrent of probationers in the competitive cervices In
loos thon 100 caoes loot year were 001IAMS1011 dotominations such that on
Tloyee would have been entitled to bask mi. A probationotor or trial
period co.ployee who is torolinated for reasons occurring after employment
oonerally dome not hove a ht to eppeal to the Coadeeion.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8
Xn 001.10ms:ton, the Corotioeion L unable to estimate the ooste
thiS proposol prooloay without an exp01101.713 and clotoilod Eltal,CV
into tho ovporion.oe o:C oaah Fodorel agoney? With the fa oto which aro
avt.ilabloo holxrgor, ib iora Geo to ostlailate that less than ;1?,i4.000000
poi' year i 1T tj costa would be involved Oovernnont..vido and
that most of .ii".1.7,e-in) Vollts wad bo oC the type Vlach klonoi00 CtialtanaraY
abSoNt in the norvol 0011ZVe OR oporatione? ho propoeed leciela4ion
not involve eaclitionol wontlituroo tor pereonnel sozvices to
acblirdotor its provision.
Approved For Release 2004/02/03 : CIA-RDP64600346R000400150008-8