LOCAL 1998
Grievance Between the Parties
January 30, 2004
To: Frank Moss, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services
cc: Ann Barrett, Managing Director – Passport Services
Florence Fultz, Director – Passport Services Office of Field Operations
Gary Roach, Director – Passport Services Office of Field Coordination
Susan Moorse – Chief, Labor-Management Relations
RE: 2004 Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements
In accordance with Article 20, Section 8 of the Agreement Between Passport Services and the National Federation of Federal Employees – Local 1998 (hereafter referred to as “the Agreement”), I am filing this Grievance Between the Parties on behalf of the bargaining unit members of the Passport Services. This grievance concerns the 2004 Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements.
We are alleging that Management has committed three violations:
1) The 2004 Performance Appraisal System for Passport Specialists is not fair or reasonable,
2) The 2004 Adjudication Standards and Elements are not consistent with the duties listed in the Position Description, and
3) The 2004 Adjudication Standards and Elements do not contribute to maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the U.S. passport and the passport issuance process.
Note: The Union filed two Unfair Labor Practice charges against the Agency on January 27, 2004. The first charge concerned the failure to provide information in response to the Union’s September 12, 2003 Information Request. The second charge concerned the implementation of the standards before negotiations had concluded, without any meaningful negotiations taking place. This Grievance Between the Parties does not touch on those two charges of failing to negotiate in good faith.
Background
Numerous changes in the passport issuance process have been instituted over the last 5+ years, the most significant of which was the Photodigitized passport on November 16, 1998.
One of the topics for the Annual Union/Management meeting held on November 2-3, 1998, was “Performance Standards: Re-evaluation due to photo digitization, utilization of the appointment system, and assumption of many communications duties by specialists”. At that meeting a Management official stated that we “will have to look at performance standards because Namecheck will pop up when [the] app[lication] is wanded at adjudication (inspection)”, rather than at Book Print (quoted in my notes). Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ken Hunter acknowledged that “photodig will be traumatic for a number of employees”.
During the January 2000 – July 2001 negotiation sessions that resulted in the current Agreement on July 3, 2001, the Union made the following proposal: "The Parties agree that standards measuring the quantity of the work done by Passport Specialists shall be based on the general principle that the Specialist is expected to adjudicate a required number of passport applications." This proposal – specifically the use of the word “adjudicate” instead of “issue” or “approve” meant that the fraud referrals and other applications that were adjudicated but not issued would be included in the count, which was not a universal practice. The reason for this was that it takes longer to disapprove an application than it takes to approve, and the time spent disapproving an application essentially counted against the Specialist. Management rebuffed this proposal, on the basis that each office had its own standards and methods.
Past Union Presidents Bill Beardall (June 1, 1998 – May 30, 2002) and Alex Allen (June 1, 2002 – November 19, 2003) heard from Passport Specialists in every Passport Office about the adjudication performance standards issue and their related concerns about the integrity of the passport issuance process during phone calls, emails, and numerous office visits. They repeatedly expressed their concerns on this subject to Passport Services Management.
For example, two weeks after September 11th, at the Annual Union/Management Council meeting held in Washington DC on September 25, 2001, the Union again expressed its view that:
Passport Specialists in many offices concerned that new Photodigitization system, Namecheck function transfer, Namecheck problems, the new Child Citizenship Act, the new Two-Parent Signature requirement, and other changes in work processes may have negatively impacted the quantity and quality of work being produced. Cites anecdotal evidence of fraudulent passports being issued in error. Would like this issue to be seriously studied together by the Union and Management and then discuss any necessary changes.
Management began a process of developing new, standardized Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements on January 7, 2002, for implementation in 2003. That implementation date fell to January 2, 2004. The Union has already expressed its disappointment with how this process was handled, and – as stated above – is filing other actions to address some of those issues.
President Beardall emailed Management on November 27, 2001, that:
Production standards: This is another concern that is popping up in several locations. The changes in law, namecheck problems, and the new system appear to be having a negative impact on employees. Those that do well, are working harder and suffering more stress to meet their quotas. Those that are fully successful, seem to be pushed towards the edge of being less than fully successful.
On July 11, 2002, President Allen emailed Management, warning:
The feeling is that we have a “Passport Express” with the current expectations and standards. We do not want to be the ones on the 6:00 news for issuing a passport to a terrorist. The feeling is that many frauds are getting through the system because Specialist do not have time to evaluate applications.
During the December 3-4, 2004 Annual Union/Management Council meeting, the Union stated:
[I]mprovements in technology have helped immensely with the quality of our work, they make the work take longer, and there has been no corresponding decrease in performance standards. Concerned that employees are rushing to meet their quotas, which employees often believe is all Management cares about, and that errors and even fraudulent applications are being issued as a result.
At the August 6, 2003 meeting to discuss the standards, the Union added:
We need enough time to do our jobs the right way. If our employees and our Union didn’t care about quality, then we wouldn’t be raising these concerns. The employees are not concerned about the numbers being too high because they are lazy and want to do as little work as possible. The employees are concerned about the numbers being too high because they care very deeply about the integrity of the document that we are producing. This is the point we have been trying to make on this issue for a number of years.
Relevant Portions of the Agreement
Article 1:
The Parties agree to fulfill the mission by maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the U.S. passport and the passport issuance process ….
Article 4, Section 1:
The goals of the Union/Management Cooperation Agreement are to further the agency mission ….
Article 18, Section 2:
The performance appraisal system and the parts that make up the system as applied to bargaining unit employees will permit, to the maximum extent feasible, the accurate evaluation of job performance on the basis of objective criteria, and will be fair, reasonable, equitable and job-related….
Article 18, Section 4:
… They will be consistent with the duties and responsibilities covered in each employee's position description. Employees will be afforded an opportunity to participate in the establishment of performance standards, the identification of critical elements, and may make suggestions about the methods used to measure the quality and quantity of work being done….
Union’s Argument
The 2004 Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements are not consistent with the Passport Specialist’s duties and responsibilities. The GS-967-11 Position Description, dated May 3, 1996, states that a Specialist “[m]aintains constant alertness to the possibilities of fraudulent documentation or claims of identity”. Adjudication is done within a context where “applicants are often not who or what they purport to be.” The Position Description continues:
Still others apply for passports in legitimate identities but for use in illegal activities. To achieve the objective of protecting the integrity of the U.S. passport while providing prompt and courteous service, the incumbent must be able to closely ‘read’ passport applicants for the subtle signs and nuances which might indicate possible passport fraud or illegal activity associated with the applications process…. Failure to detect fraudulent evidence or claimed false identity could result in issuance of a passport to a non-citizen who could be a terrorist or criminal. (emphasis added)
Imposing the strict requirements of 24 applications per hour for GS-11’s and GS-9’s, 21 for GS-7’s, and 19 for GS-5’s (and the separate standards for the NPC and CPC megacenters), are not consistent with meeting these fraud prevention and detection duties. Too many fraudulent applications have been issued in error already, and – since these standards will require employees to work even faster in 2004 than they did in 2003 – even more errors can be expected in the future. That fact that these standards will require employees to work even faster was proven by Management’s April 2003 study.
Therefore, the 2004 Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements are not fair, nor are they reasonable. A fair and reasonable standard would allow for the diligent scrutiny of fraudulent applications. After September 11th, Immigration Inspectors had their 30 second quota for screening passengers eliminated. A new Western Hemisphere Passport Requirement is being considered that could potentially result in an increase from 7 million to 15 million passports issued each year. During testimony regarding that proposal, the concern expressed was that with so many variations in birth certificates and identity documents, it is too difficult for the inspectors to adequately determine the veracity of the documents, and thus the legality of the passengers’ entry into the country.
Time pressures and quotas were deemed a dangerous practice for those screening entry into the United States. The impetus for the Western Hemisphere requirement is that the difficulty of adjudicating the varying documents to enter the United States is too complex to be done at the border. So, millions of U.S. citizen travelers who previously visited the Western Hemisphere without passports will perhaps soon be required to have them. If time pressures and quotas for the Immigration Inspectors who reviewed those complex documents were a bad idea, then time pressures and quotas for Passport Specialists to review those same documents (and perform additional functions) is also a bad idea.
Information to document any trends in frauds issued in error was requested on September 12, 2003, and the refusal to provide any information on that subject and others is the cause of one of the aforementioned Unfair Labor Practice charges. From what we understand from discussions with Management on this, there is no tracking system, database, or analysis of the frauds issued in error on a national basis. While this information would certainly be helpful, it is important to keep in mind that whatever cases are issued to frauds in error are not necessarily discovered like clockwork within a useful time period. Some of the errors are never discovered at all, while others take months, years, and even decades before the impostor slips up and is caught. The frauds issued in error that we know of that have been caught after the fact should have, for the most part, been caught before the fact.
However, we do have the input of the trained, seasoned Passport Specialists, who literally have no stake in anything other than objective observations on this issue. For example, whether the standard is 24 per hour, 30 per hour, or 20 per hour, that standard measures the number of applications processed – and the employees can process as many as they are ordered to do. Lowering the standard is probably not going to result in some sort of financial windfall for these employees, or quicker promotions, or increased awards. Raising the standards, which is the de facto result of the new Performance Plan, is probably not going to result in mass layoffs and misery. The Specialists have contended time and again that the pace is too quick for diligent scrutiny. Their motive is simple: to maintain and enhance the integrity of the passport issuance process. Their voices should be heard.
Requested Relief:
Management to allow more time for proper scrutiny of passport applications and evidence, by either eliminating or reducing the numerical standard for adjudication.
Clarification:
This Grievance Between the Parties concerns that 2004 Adjudication Performance Standards and Elements as they exist presently. The two Unfair Labor Practice charges concern matters that led to these elements and standards being implemented. If an authority finds that these actions are covering the same issue, which is not our intent, then we hereby withdraw any portion of this Grievance in favor of the Unfair Labor Practice charges.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Colin Patrick Walle