The Board stated that Lee and Beatrez could be held liable under the statute because there was “a pattern of cooperation” between the HR specialists and the supervisor who sought to promote a particular individual. Beatrez, Human Resource (HR) Specialists for the Coast Guard, violated section 2302(b)(6) when they assisted in promoting a particular individual to a supervisory position. 2011), OSC brought two complaints before the Board, alleging that Richard F. Has the Board recently issued any significant decisions addressing this PPP? The MSPB will consider, first and foremost, the nature and seriousness of the misconduct and its relationship to the employee’s position and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or was frequently repeated. In assessing the penalty, MSPB takes into account the relevant factors enumerated in Douglas v. The penalties assessed against the employee can include disciplinary action consisting of a reprimand, a removal, a reduction in grade, a suspension, debarment from Federal employment for up to five years, or an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000. The Special Counsel may petition MSPB to discipline an employee for committing this PPP. The instructions for filing a complaint with OSC may be found at its website: What type of penalty is imposed when a section 2302(b)(6) violation is found ? 604, ¶ 16 (2007).Īdditionally, an individual may file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which is a separate, independent executive agency with the authority to investigate violations of section 2302(b)(6) and to seek corrective action before the MSPB. However, MSPB cannot review a violation of section 2302(b)(6) unless it is related to an otherwise appealable action. The MSPB will consider an alleged instance of this PPP as an affirmative defense in connection with the filing of an appeal. What is MSPB’s jurisdiction to review an alleged violation of 5 U.S.C. Office of Personnel Management, 94 M.S.P.R. The Board also has found, based on the wording of the statute, that it does not prohibit actions improperly advantaging a class of persons, only an individual. Conversely, hiring actions that have the unintentional effect of favoring one applicant over another would not violate section 2302(b)(6). It is possible to violate section 2302(b)(6) using legally permissible hiring actions if the intent is to afford preferential treatment to an individual. However, it is not necessary that the action actually have resulted in an advantage, only that its purpose be to give an advantage. In other words, an improper motive must be shown. The preference must be given for the purpose of providing an improper advantage. § 2302(b)(6), Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) case law requires proof of an intentional or purposeful taking of a personnel action in such a way as to give a preference to a particular individual for the purpose of improving his or her prospects. For example, there is a veterans’ preference statute that gives eligible veterans preference in appointment over many other applicants. It should be noted that some employment preferences are authorized by law, so they would not be prohibited. It complements and supports the same goal of fair competition as do PPPs 4 and 5, which prohibit obstructing the right to compete and influencing a person to withdraw from competition. This PPP is designed to prevent an agency from giving an improper advantage in promoting an employee or in selecting an applicant for a position in federal employment. This provision supports the first Merit System Principle which asserts that recruitment, selection and advancement should be merit-based. What is the purpose of the sixth prohibited personnel practice? The sixth prohibited personnel practice (PPP) can be found at section 2302(b)(6) in title 5 of the United States Code. Where is this prohibition covered in the law? Grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment. Prohibited Personnel Practice 6: Granting Any Preference or Advantage Not Authorized by LawĪny employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority. 13 - Nondisclosure Forms, Policies & Agreements.10 - Conduct Not Adversely Affecting Performance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |