Office of the Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20240
December 19, 2003
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIRECTIVE 2004-05
TO: Bureau and Office Equal Opportunity Officers
FROM: E. Melodee Stith, Director /s/
Office for Equal Opportunity
SUBJECT: Evaluation of the Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureaus and Offices Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
During recent months, the Departmental Office for Equal Opportunity reviewed information obtained from Bureaus and Offices regarding their Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures to ensure compliance with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations at 29 CFR 1614 and internal DOI ADR policies. The review included assessing the efficiency of the Bureaus’ and Offices’ ADR procedures, techniques and resources to determine what factors may contribute to the under-utilization of the ADR program and to recommend procedural improvements where warranted.
An evaluation of the information received from the Bureaus and Offices resulted in the attached ADR report of findings, recommendations and best practices. The evaluation revealed several ADR inefficiencies throughout the Bureaus and Offices. Ultimately, to ensure uniformity and consistency within the ADR Program, the Department will establish and implement one set of procedures to be utilized by all Bureaus and Offices. In the interim, Bureaus and Offices are encouraged to review the attached report and use it as a resource to develop more efficient procedures that will increase the utilization of ADR.
Should you have any questions, or wish to provide feedback on the attached report, please contact my staff member, Acquanetta Newson at (202) 208-7101 or email at Acquanetta_Newson@ios.doi.gov.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION………………………………………. 2
FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS..…..............
3
BEST
PRACTICES……………………………………...
4
CONCLUSION………………………………………….. 4
i
A Review of the Department of the Interior
Bureaus and
Offices
Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations at 29 CFR 1614 require the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to provide complainants with access to alternative dispute resolution at the informal and formal stages of complaints processing and adjudication. Accordingly, the DOI requires that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures be implemented in Bureaus and Offices to provide a mechanism by which complainants and managers could more easily resolve issues without having to engage in the full administrative Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints process.
DOI complaints records show that ADR is
under-utilized at
the informal and formal stages of complaints processing.
The data also show that the resolution rate
is high when ADR is accepted in the formal stage. The
DOI Annual Federal Equal Employment
~ ADR was offered in 54% of all counselings at the informal stage.
~ ADR was accepted in 29% of those offered at the informal stage.
~ ADR was successful in 23% of those who accepted at the informal stage.
~ ADR was offered in 41% of all complaints filed at the formal stage.
~ ADR was accepted by 46% of those offered at the formal stage.
~ ADR was successful in 89% of those who accepted at the formal stage.
To help understand, in part, why ADR is under-utilized by DOI complainants, a review of the ADR procedures for each Bureau and Office was conducted. The review involved examining the ADR procedures and determining the likelihood of the complainant’s acceptance of ADR for complaint resolution. Each Bureau and Office was asked to provide a copy of its most recent procedures on ADR. Findings and recommendations, as well as best practices, are provided below.
Findings & Recommendations
(in italics):
DOI employees, former employees and applicants must be assured a fair and equitable process for dispute resolution. To help establish an effective, efficient and timely dispute resolution process, ADR procedures should be in writing, widely distributed across the Bureau or Office, include a clear and precise outline of the entire ADR process, and applied consistently across the Bureau or Office.
~ Some Bureaus and
Offices have
pre-determined exclusions of certain types of issues from ADR (i.e.
removal). If a
Bureau or Office ADR procedures exclude certain types of issues from
ADR, the procedures
should specify the types of issues excluded and advise the complainant
of
his/her right to proceed to the EEO Counseling or full administrative
EEO
complaints process. However, Bureaus
should review their procedures and
determine whether the exclusions are necessary and/or appropriate. ADR should be available in the broadest sense
possible.
~ Some
Bureau and Office ADR procedures do not specify a timeframe in which
ADR will occur
when the complainant elects ADR. Procedures
should specify the timeframe in which ADR will occur.
It is noted that while regulations allow the pre-complaint
processing period to be extended up to 90 days when ADR is elected, the
Bureau
or Office should be able to conduct ADR within less time and close the
pre-complaint
period before 90 days have lapsed. The
ADR process should be monitored to ensure expeditious resolution and to
avoid
unnecessary delays.
~ Some
Bureau and Office ADR procedures provide very little information on
mediators
and/or facilitators. ADR
procedures should clearly indicate how mediators/facilitators are
selected, the
role of the mediator/facilitator, and who pays if contracted.
~ One Bureau’s
ADR procedures require the use of a “strike process” in which a list of
mediators, along with brief descriptions of their credentials, is
provided to
the complainant and the management official. The
strike process requires the complainant
and the management official to separately select from the list. Through a process of elimination, a mediator
is selected. ADR
procedures should indicate
that EEO officials and ADR coordinators are responsible for the
selection of a mediator. The mediator must
be a neutral party who can effectively
and efficiently guide the process, clarify issues, and assist in the
search for
solutions to problems between the parties in conflict.
~ Some Bureau
and Office ADR procedures are not widely distributed or easily
accessible to
employees. Bureaus
and Offices should ensure
that all employees have access to information on the ADR process. Notification may be through a variety of
media to include EEO Counselor
posters and the Bureau or
Office webpage.
Best Practices:
Some Bureau and Office ADR procedures included several best practices. Bureaus and Offices are encouraged to adopt and/or continue the following practices.
~ Utilize the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service as an ADR resource.
~ Utilize
the DOI Office of
Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution (CADR) as a mediation
source.
~ Conduct an ADR participant survey to determine effectiveness of the process and to get customer feedback.
~ Analyze data to determine the success of
the
ADR program and what improvements or changes should be made.
~ Train
all managers, supervisors and
employees on the ADR program and procedures.
~ Publicize the ADR program and
procedures through
presentations, memoranda, brochures, a program handbook, websites etc.
~ Train EEO Counselors on how to promote and encourage ADR.
Conclusion:
The EEOC Report on the Federal Workforce, Fiscal
Year 2002, indicates
that ADR is under-utilized in the overall Federal Workforce. And, like the Federal Workforce, the DOI ADR
Program
is under-utilized. Over the past three
years, DOI has issued several Equal Opportunity Directives on the
implementation of Bureau and Office ADR procedures; however, use of ADR
has not
increased significantly. In an effort to
ensure uniformity and consistency and
increase
support and use of the ADR program, it is
highly recommended that DOI establish
and issue DOI-wide ADR Program procedures for the effective, efficient
and
timely implementation of ADR as it relates to the EEO complaints and
adjudication
process.