WHEN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPLAIN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 76
• Publication Date: March 1, 1969
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

ApproveFor Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP72-00337RQ00400030076-9
u::~u1
VJ
"rn
f
L~~
BY IRVING KATOR
Assistant to the Executive Director
U.S. Civil Service Commission
Approved For Release 2005/12114:
-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9
T AST JULY the Civil Service Commission established
a Complaint Office in Washington to receive com-
plaints and inquiries from Federal employees (and mem-
bers of the public, too) on matters involving the Federal
personnel system. This was a first for the Commission
and a new venture into some unexplored areas of per-
sonnel administration and human relations.
WHY A COMPLAINT OFFICE?
Federal employees have regular grievance and appeal
channels which begin in the employing agency and in
the case of adverse actions (dismissals, suspensions, etc.)
include appeal to the Commission. These appeal rights
are well established and the new Complaint Office was
not intended to supplant them.
But despite the opportunity for Federal employees to
complain formally through both agency and Commission
channels, there seemed to the Commission to be a need
for a place to which an employee who had a problem
could come and get sympathetic understanding and as-
sistance from a knowledgeable staff member-a place
where his complaint, if justified, could get swift corrective
action.
In announcing the new Office, the Commission stated
that it would continue to look to Federal agency man-
agers to handle complaints from their employees fairly
and expeditiously. However, the new Complaint Office
would be a single point in the Commission to which
employees could come or write about the problems they
had not been able to resolve satisfactorily by other means.
It would also serve employees who believe their rights
under the Federal personnel system had been adversely
affected by agency action.
All employees would be free to come or write to or
call the Complaint Office when they felt it would be of
help to them. However, if their problem was one for
which a remedy existed (such as an appeal channel),
they would be advised of the remedy and how to pursue it.
In short, it was recognized that employees do have
problems which a third-party ear and helping hand might
quickly straighten out or alleviate. It was recognized, too,
that employees often need only information and that
their "problems" might be solved this way. Government
is complex and it seemed advisable to have an office that
could give employees signposts and directions when they
needed help. Important also in the establishment of the
office was the fact that in a large system with 3 million
employees injustices are bound to occur. There should be
a place for an employee to go to get relief. Above all,
.the Commission was telling employees, "If you've got a
beef, we will try to help."
VOLUMI', OF COMPLAINTS
One of the main concerns in establishing the new
office was the workload it might generate. Didn't every
employee in the Federal Government have a complaint?
Wouldn't the office be. inundated with complaints and
problems? Actually the contrary was true. For the first
12 weeks of operation an average of 105 complaints or
problems per week were brought to the attention of the
office either in person, by telephone, or by letter. As word
of the new Complaint Office gets around, additional
business may be created.
But the fear of being inundated has now evaporated.
This doesn't mean that Federal employees are the most
satisfied employees in the world. It does mean that the
overall employee-management climate and the normal
grievance and appeal channels are such that the vast
majority of employees have no reason to visit, call, or
write the Complaint Office. This in itself was a comfort-
ing revelation to those in the Commission who had heard
so much about "employee unrest."
An important feature of the new office is its ability
to provide information upon request. Often what is re-
garded as a complaint or what may develop into a com-
plaint is simply, at least initially, a need for information.
When the information is provided, the complaint may
be avoided. This is so even though the information
provided may be adverse to the employee. For example,
"Why wasn't I promoted?" When the reasons are ex-
plained and the Merit Promotion System made under-
standable to the employee, many times (but not always)
his concern disappears. He may not be satisfied-he still
wants the promotion-but he is able to understand some
of the reasons why the other fellow got the job.
The new office provides a sympathetic ear and human
compassion for the other fellow's problem. This is an
important function, sometimes the most important one
it can provide. Many employee problems cannot be solved
by administrative action; they can't be solved except by
the employee himself. These may be personal matters
affecting the individual-a problem with a colleague, for
example. If the employee can talk this kind of problem
out, can have someone listen sympathetically, the matter
may become less important to him. Maybe he just needed
an opportunity to ventilate the subject. Sometimes, of
course, more than this happens: Depending on the prob-
lem, the Complaint Office may call the agency personnel
office and arrange adjustments that can be helpful to the
employee.
ROLE OF THE AGENCIES
One can ask why employees do not talk to the per-
sonnel officials in their agencies on such problems. Of
course they should and they do. The extent to which
the agency gets the confidence of its employees in this
regard, the better the entire personnel operation is in
that agency.
At the same time, for one reason or another, employees
might prefer a third party to hear their story. It may
tauuary-March 1969 17
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9
(Z'3 "I I
r' J'i
be a matter that an employee is reluctant to raise in his
agency despite every assurance that the matter would be
kept confidential. This is understandable and in no way
a reflection on the agency. Even though the third party,
in this case the Commission, may provide the same infor-
mation the employee received from the agency, the facts
gain in credibility when verified by the Commission and
the information previously given by the agency may then
be accepted.
Most matters employees complain about can be re-
solved only by the employing agency-a transfer, a cor-
rection of personnel records, a promotion. The Complaint
Office gets in touch with a designated person in the
personnel office of each agency who serves as a contact
point for the Complaint Office. The agency personnel
office sees what it can do to resolve the problem. Some-
times it can; many times it can't. Maybe the problem was
caused by an oversight; maybe something fell between
the cracks; maybe a little human compassion was needed
and the personnel office can see that it is provided.
ARE GRIPES LEGITIMATE?
All complaints received by the Complaint Office are
legitimate in the sense that the employee feels deeply
about them or else he would not go this route. But how
many are the kind in which the employee has been
wronged and on which corrective action should be taken?
Actually not many, but there are some, and it is these
cases where intervention by the Complaint Office is most
helpful.
Inquiries to agencies by the Complaint Office can be
instrumental in helping the agency reach a decision which
might otherwise go against the employee. The fact that a
third party discussed it with the agency may help the
agency clarify the position it will take with respect to
the employee.
Maybe the employee should be given a second chance.
More often than not, the Complaint Office intervention
will result in no change in the agency's position because
the agency is on sound ground and there is no basis for
change. These cases are fully explained to the employee,
however, by the Complaint Office or by the agency and,
hopefully, the employee is at least more satisfied because
of the explanation.
THE KIND OF COMPLAINTS
The complaints run the gamut from "Why was my
desk moved?" to discharge or suspension. If an employee
is being discharged and comes to the Complaint Office,
he is informed of the appeal channels available to him.
An appointment is made with the proper officials in the
Civil Service Commission who can be of assistance. How
an employee can appeal is explained to him. If the em-
ployee complains of discrimination, he is informed of
the discrimination complaint procedure and the Equal
Employment Opportunity official in his agency is con-
tacted and asked to look into the matter. Sometimes the
contact alone is enough to bring the parties, together and
resolve the matter without a formal complaint.
The largest single category of complaints is promotion.
This is understandable. People want to get promotions;
many are qualified. But there is usually only one job to
be filled by some one person. Questions can be resolved
best in these cases by explaining the Merit Promotion
Plan to the employee. Lack of communication is still with
us and more often than not is the cause of employees'
dissatisfaction on their "problems."
Other problems involve questions of transfer, right to
benefits, discharge from employment, and supervisor-
employee relations. They run from very complex and
highly emotional issues to "Why didn't I receive my
annuity check on time?" The office straightens out the
annuity check complaint in no time.
IS THIS AN OMBUDSMAN?
An early question about the new office was whether it
was an Ombudsman. It is not an Ombudsman. The Com-
plaint Office of the Civil. Service Commission reports
directly to the Chairman. While it is established at a high
level in the Commission, it is within the Commission and
not outside and in this sense does not meet the main
criterion for an Ombudsman-independence of the
Executive.
The Scandinavian Ombudsmen report to their legisla-
tures, for example. Quite the contrary for the Complaint
Office-it is part and parcel of the executive branch.
But there are similarities-real ones-between the Of-
fice and the Ombudsman. The Complaint Office will listen
to. any employee who believes he has a problem. An Om-
budsman will, too. The Complaint Office will ask an
agency to look into a matter where it believes the agency
can take action to correct the complaint. An Ombudsman
will do this, too, and usually has the power to request
documents and reports about the case. If the agency's
explanation is satisfactory, both the Complaint Office
and the Ombudsman will accept it. (Incidentally, both
18
CIVIL SERVICE JOURNAL
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9
have about the same batting average. In about 10 percent
of all cases coming to their attention, some action of
benefit to the complainant is taken.)
The Ombudsman usually makes a report with recom-
mendations for legislation , to correct the prob:c:ms he
has uncovered. One of the many benefits of the Complaint
Of ice will be the information developed about the kind
of problems which trouble employees and the steps that
can be taken to eliminate the problems. New insight into
human relations in the Federal service may be realized.
The Complaint Office will periodically report to agency
personnel directors on the nature of the complaints and
what they mean in terms of agency personnel manage-
ment. Agency practices are bound to be changed in some
respects when this information is provided to them.
The Complaint Office has something over the Ombuds-
man in one way. When the complaint is justified and
action warranted, the Civil Service-Commission can order
corrective action. Actually to date this has not been nec-
essary. Federal administrators are very much concerned
with the protection of employee rights and, if an improper
course of action is explained to them, correction will
follow immediately.
Like the Ombudsman, the Complaint Office cannot
function unless there is a genuine desire on the part of
agency administrators to administer their programs fairly
and properly. It is only in an atmosphere where the rights
of employees are recognized and where administrators
want to do the right thing that the Complaint Office or
Ombudsman can function. It is a tribute to personnel
administrators that the Complaint Office has been suc-
cessful in its operation.
FUTURE OF THE COMPLAINT OFFICE
The Complaint Office should go out of business. That
is its sole objective. Federal agencies should be able to
provide much the same service that the Complaint Office
now provides. Maybe a third party to hear the employee's
complaint will always be necessary. At the same time,
when employees develop full confidence in the personnel
office, they will take complaints there and have them
resolved on the spot-This is the objective toward which
Federal agencies should work. Many little complaint desks
in Federal agencies isn't a bad idea. Better communica-
tion with employees is a good idea, too. This is a rule
now observed mostly in the breach. Big complaints often
come from a little lack of understanding. Often it isn't
the employee's fault that he doesn't understand. Govern-
ment is large; the system is not as simple as we would
like it to be; the problems are complex.
But every effort must be made in the agency to keep
employees informed of personnel matters which a =ect
then n and which they have a right to know about. There
should be more person-to-person communication and
the employee should have the opportunity within the
agency to get the sympathetic ear and human understand-
ing which is the biggest stock in trade of the Complaint
Office.
11 009 at
Major personnel legislation enacted by the Second Session,
9011 Congress:
APPOINTMENT
Public Law 90-351, approved June 19, 1968, title VI,
section 1101 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, provides that after the service of
the present incumbent terminates, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and shall be compensated at the rate prescribed
for level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule.
APPROPRIATED FUND RESTRICTIONS
Public Law 90-479, approved August 12, 1968, title
V, section 510, of the Public Works for Water and
Power Resources Development and Atomic Energy Com-
mission Appropriation Act, 1969, bars the use of funds
appropriated under this or any other Act to finance inter-
departmental boards, commissions, councils, committees,
or similar groups under section 214 of the Independent
Offices Appropriation Act, 1946, unless they have prior
and specific congressional approval of such method of
financial support.
Other appropriation acts with provisions similar to
Public Law 90-479 were passed.
Public Law 90-550, Independent Offices and Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development Appropriation
Act, 1969. (Sec. 307-Bars use of appropriated funds
under this Act only, except that during 1969 appropria-
tions of certain departments and agencies shall be avail-
able up to certain specified amounts for (a) President's
Council on Youth Opportunity; (b) Interagency Com-
mince on Mexican-American Affairs; (c) U.S.-Mexico
Commission on Border Development and Friendship; and
(d) National Council on Indian Opportunity.)
January-March 1969 19
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400030076-9