Background Information for DOJ Order 1200.1, Part 6, Employee Programs and Services
		Background Information for DOJ Order 1200.1, Part 6, Employee Programs and Services   Chapter 1.  Workers' Compensation Program Feb. 1, 2001 Order canceled by this chapter: DOJ 1810.2, Workers' Compensation Program, Mar. 13, 1995. (See paragraph 3 of Change 8.) There were no major changes in Department policy. Discussion of comments: A component felt that the policy statement in paragraph B.1. was too broad and could possibly be misused to include light duty for reasons other than job-related injuries. We have included a reference to job-related injuries or diseases. A bureau felt that the policy statement should emphasize the responsibility to provide a safe environment for the employees. We did not incorporate additional language because we feel that the policy statement already covers that. Several components felt that supervisors could not ensure that employees receive medical care. We agree, and paragraph B.2.c.(1) was modified to reflect that supervisors ensure that employees are given the opportunity to receive medical care. Several components felt that the supervisors could not investigate job-related injuries. We agree and paragraph B.2.c.(2) was modified to require supervisors to ascertain the facts regarding job-related injuries and diseases reported by employees. Several components stated that we should not require the completion of OWCP forms without also requiring their submission to OWCP within the required 10 days after notification of an injury/disease. Paragraph B.2.c.(4) was changed to include the submission requirement, as was paragraph B.2.e.(3) addressing the timely submission of forms to OWCP by personnel and/or safety officers. Components also felt that supervisors, as well as personnel and/or safety officers, should be required to monitor compensation claims and controvert those that are baseless. We agreed and a mirror section was added with such a requirement for supervisors. (See paragraph B.2.c.(6).) A clarification was requested regarding the required forms that the employee must complete in a timely manner. The requirement was amended to state that the employee must complete the appropriate OWCP claim forms in a timely manner. A couple of components requested the addition of periodic medical reports from attending physicians, as part of the employee's responsibility to keep their supervisor informed of their medical status. We agree, and appropriate language was added. (See paragraphs B.2.d.(2) and (3).) A component commented that it was not feasible to maintain an Employee Medical File (EMF) for each injury/disease. The wording of this section was ambiguous. It has been changed to reflect the original intent which was that the personnel and/or safety officer should maintain in the employee's EMF a record of each injury/disease that person has claimed. (See paragraph B.2.e.(3).) A component commented that the personnel and/or safety officer was not responsible for ensuring that employee bills are paid. That is a DOL responsibility. We agree, and the section was clarified to reflect the personnel and/or safety officer's responsibility to forward to DOL in a timely manner any bills submitted to them by the DOJ employee. (See paragraph B.2.e.(7).) A component asked if the Leave Administration Order, DOJ 1630.1B, regarding leave buy-back, should be echoed in this Order. We feel that DOJ Order 1630.1B speaks for itself and does not need to be included in the order chapter on the Workers' Compensation Program. A component pointed out that personnel and/or Safety officers should also help supervisors in structuring restricted or limited duty assignments. The section was revised accordingly. (See paragraph B.2.e.(9).)

Chapter 2.  Flexible Work Options Program
Nov. 1, 2002
Jun. 17, 2005

There was no previous order canceled by this chapter. (See Change 14.) There were no major changes in Department policy.

The Jun. 17, 2005, installment revised the chapter to require that component Flexible Work Options Program Plans require that supervisors and managers process employees' requests for flexible work options within a timeframe that does not exceed 6 weeks or 30 work days. (See Change 22.)

Discussion of comments:

Paragraph A. A Bureau recommended including Section 359 of Public Law 106-346, on Governmentwide telecommuting policy, within the reference table. This citation has been included.

Paragraph B.1. Two Litigating Divisions questioned the use of the expression, "improves" in the first sentence which describes the benefits of flexible work options. Although there is significant data to support the concept that flexible work options improve efficiency, morale, and productivity, the word "promotes" has been inserted in place of "improves." A Litigating Division questioned the use of "e.g." when referring to the list of flexible work options. This was done to permit Components flexibility in defining those options. This allows for the possibility of unique and creative options that are not specified within current Department policy. A Bureau recommended inclusion of "flexible work schedule" in the examples of flexible work options available through Department policy. This has been inserted.

Paragraph B.2. Several Litigating Divisions questioned a sentence in the draft chapter on the delegation of authority to Component heads to establish a basic workweek and stated that the only known delegation is to the agency head. We have removed this sentence since it was not our intention to make any change in the existing practice in establishing workweeks.

Paragraph B.2.a. A Bureau recommended that we add "positions that perform specific functions which would be incompatible with approval of the flexible work options" as an example of an exemption to use of certain flexible work options. This language has been inserted. Since functions may be described in terms of criteria, this example also allows for use of eligibility criteria for determining exemptions as suggested by another Component.

Paragraph B.2.b. A Bureau recommended deleting the explanation of exemptions. This requirement was developed to help ensure a reasonable and thoughtful approach to determining what flexible work programs will be disallowed for various Component occupations or functions. This will also assist the Department in responding to requests from outside organizations such as the Office of Personnel Management, Congress, and the White House.

Paragraph B.2.c. A Litigating Division recommended the inclusion of "core days" in addition to "core hours" as examples of critical times, since a flexible work option may involve core days. This has been integrated into the chapter.

Paragraph B.2.f. Two Components recommended deleting the process for reviewing denied requests. Although employees may formally grieve a management decision concerning flexible work arrangements, many do not understand that. In addition, management may determine that less adversarial procedures would be preferable initially and define an alternative approach. In either case, the process should be stated in the policy so that all staff know how to proceed.

Paragraph B.2.g. A Bureau requested further definition of what should be tracked to ensure plan effectiveness. This is not information that can be generically stated in the DOJ Order because it is a result of the actual structure of individual Component plans. The Component Worklife Coordinator can request assistance from the Department Worklife Program Manager in developing these measures, if need be.

Paragraph B.2.h. Seven Components questioned the word "participation" in defining what type of goals a Component would establish for measuring employee use of flexible work options. The point was made that participation in a flexible arrangement is voluntary and it would be difficult, at best, to anticipate this number. "Eligibility" replaces the word, "participation," as a more reasonable measurement of improvement in Component flexible work options performance.

Paragraphs B.3. and B.4. As suggested by a Litigating Division, we have changed the word "worklife" to "flexible work options" to more accurately reflect the scope of the chapter.

Paragraph B. The requirement to submit plans for review in the last sentence in paragraph B. is now covered in more detail, in response to Component comments, in paragraph C.1. See discussion below.

Paragraph C.1. The draft chapter circulated for comment had a requirement at the end of paragraph B. for annual review and approval of Flexible Work Options Plans. A Bureau commented that the requirement for annual submission of plans would be too administratively burdensome. The review requirement has been moved to paragraph C.1. and has been changed to allow 6 months from the effective date of the order chapter for initial submission of Component plans and to provide for "periodic" review instead of "annual" review. In addition, a Component asked who the approving official is for Component's plans. The Assistant Attorney General for Administration is the approving official.

Paragraph C.2. A Litigating Division questioned the annual reporting requirement as administratively burdensome in addition to the existing annual DOJ Worklife Program Report. Also, the Division requested clarification of the reporting period as either on a fiscal or calendar year basis. This paragraph has been changed to indicate that the existing DOJ Worklife Program Report, which is derived on a calendar year basis, will include the additional information, so that only one report will be required. (Components are notified of report requirements annually.) The division also noted that we did not specify to whom the report is to be submitted. We have added that the report will be submitted to the Director, Human Resources, JMD. Two additional Components commented on the reporting requirements. In one case, the Component recommended that only plan effectiveness and not achievement of goals be reported; in the other case, the component suggested that only goals be reported and not plan effectiveness. Paragraph C.2. has been modified to remove the requirement for reporting on plan effectiveness. The achievement of goals and objectives will be a sufficient indicator of progress.

Paragraph C.3. A Litigating Division requested records retention guidance for flexible work option documentation. After consulting with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), we have established the NARA records retention schedule for alternate worksite records (NARA General Records Schedule 1, Item 42) as the retention schedule for all Department flexible work options records. The retention requirements have been inserted into the chapter.

General Comments

Several Litigating Divisions suggested that implementation of the Flexible Work Options Program would result in unrealistic expectations and morale problems among employees who are interested in obtaining a flexible work option. On the contrary, the chapter seeks to establish formal, clearly communicated standards - as defined by the Components themselves - on application and use of flexible work options consistent with organization mission requirements. This is essential to avoiding the possible inequity that exists when only informal, word-of-mouth programs are utilized. Only poorly worded, inconsistently applied Component policies would prove detrimental to employee morale. The responsibility for developing an appropriate plan rests with the Component.

Several Litigating Divisions suggested that the chapter did not take into account the existence of bargaining units. The chapter is written in a broad manner and permits each Component complete flexibility in constructing a Flexible Work Options Program that meets the needs of its own organizations and employees. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Component to appropriately reflect collective bargaining agreements within its program.

A Litigating Division recommended entitling the chapter, "Worklife Program" and broadening it to include other worklife programs such as dependent care and "family" leave. The expansion of the chapter to include the other worklife programs would detract from the emphasis on flexible work options. Unlike dependent care and "family" leave programs, there is still significant inconsistency in the application and use of flexible work options within Department Components. The purpose of the order chapter is to ensure that Components clearly communicate their flexible work options policies, in writing.

In the definition of "flexible work options plan" we have revised the phrase "component- and bureau-level guidelines" to read "component guidelines" since the term "component," as defined in the Human Resources Dictionary in Appendix I of the Order, means an Office, Board, Division, or Bureau. A Litigating Division commented that the definition of "flexible work options plan" was inconsistent with paragraph B.2. of the Order. The inconsistency was not further explained nor does there appear to be a problem. Therefore, no additional change has been made. A Bureau recommended the insertion of a statement, within the definition of "flexible work options plan," to reflect the need for flexible work options to be consistent with mission requirements. The recommended language has been included.

Jun. 17, 2005, discussion of comments:

Several Litigating Divisions recommended adding the word "generally" to the timeframe requirement to allow for situations where more information is required and the manager requires additional time to process the request. The specific statement suggested by one Division is, "Application procedures and processing timeframes; (generally, the management processing times shall not exceed 6 weeks or 30 work days)." The word "generally" will not be added to the processing timeframe because six weeks to review and respond to a request for a flexible work arrangement provides ample time for an informed decision. A manager can choose to deny or modify a request if it appears impractical or unworkable as submitted. An employee always has the option of appealing or revising and resubmitting a denied request.

One Litigating Division asked how the Justice Management Division (JMD) would enforce this requirement. Each component must include the timeframe for responding in its plan, which is subject to review by JMD's Department Worklife Program Manager. Also, components report annually to the Director, Human Resources, JMD, on Flexible Work Options Program goals and objectives as part of the DOJ Worklife Report.

A Bureau stated that components should have the authority to set timeframes and that any complaints concerning timeframes should be dealt with on an individual basis. In the interest of a consistent, Department-wide approach, it is necessary to establish a reasonable processing timeframe that all Department staff are aware of and support. Again, 30 work days or 6 weeks to approve or disapprove a request for flexibility is fair and reasonable.

A Litigating Division asked for clarification of the term "management processing time" - i.e., what type of "processing" was envisioned. The processing referred to in the Order is strictly the manager's review and approval/denial/modification of the flexible work option request. It is not intended to include any personnel processing activities such as those actions necessary to convert an employee from a full-time to a part-time arrangement.

Return to the TOP