Changes in Federal Employment Policies
Recent guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) indicates significant changes for federal employees transferring to exceptional duties under a new scheduling policy. While the most immediate effect seems to be the loss of appeal rights for many workers, the implications reach much deeper.
Federal agencies are proposing around 50,000 positions for the development and execution of these transformative policies. More roles may be added later, pending President Trump’s approval. These finalized rules are set to take effect on March 8th.
OPM’s memo on implementation provides details, including templates for agencies. Employees may receive a signature authorizing them to take on exempt duties starting from a specific date. By signing, they acknowledge that their role is voluntary and that it doesn’t grant them appeal rights to the Merit System Protection Board regarding performance or disciplinary issues.
The accompanying Q&A document clarifies that while signatures are not mandatory, declining to sign won’t change the outcome. If an employee refuses, the agency must document the notification about the transfer and the refusal date in human resources. Importantly, the refusal does not prevent the transfer from going into effect, and agencies shouldn’t take adverse action based on such refusals.
Moreover, the disciplinary policy under this new framework states that agencies aren’t required to implement performance improvement plans before addressing allegations of poor performance. There’s also no obligation to adhere to penalty schedules or progressive discipline before taking action.
An important shift includes the removal of the Douglas Factors, a set of guidelines previously used by the Merit System Protection Board to assess the reasonableness of penalties for misconduct.
Interestingly, employees under this Schedule P/C designation often find themselves ineligible for new hires, relocation incentives, or student loan repayment agreements. However, agencies are expected to maintain respect for these employees and those who transition may find other pay flexibilities available, according to agency policies.
Some further insights reveal that once positioned, an employee can advance without needing to reapply. If they meet certain senior-level criteria, a public financial disclosure form might be required. Importantly, designation under scheduling policies doesn’t inherently disqualify someone from bargaining unit positions; this is determined by job duties and labor relations regulations.
On another note, agencies are obligated to protect employees from retaliation and other forbidden personnel practices through established internal processes. The new policies do not alter existing telework regulations, although they will be guided by agency policies. Some educational program restrictions apply, but agencies may still facilitate student externships.
Reduction-in-force (RIF) rules will remain in effect, and eligible employees can receive severance payments in accordance with standard regulations. Performance ratings and expectations will continue based on the agency’s evaluation system, with assessments recorded in official personnel files at the end of each cycle.
Looking ahead, employees inevitably wonder about the future of the P/C scheduling. Under the proposed regulations, appeals related to RIFs would shift from the Merit System Protection Board to OPM. Therefore, OPM provides clear guidance on upcoming steps as this scheduling policy becomes active, which could significantly influence those affected by these changes.
