WORKSHOP MINUTES

Track 1

Federal Workplace Disputes Section

Tuesday, June 8,1999

 

FEDERAL WORKPLACE OMBUDS OFFICE: SHOULD YOUR AGENCY CONSIDER ONE?

 

The Workplace Disputes Section panel presentation on AFEDERAL WORKPLACE OMBUDS OFFICE: Should Your Agency Consider One?@ was held on Tuesday, June 8, 1999 at the United States Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L=Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC. The session was developed by Leah Meltzer, Director, ADR Program, Securities and Exchange Commission, facilitated by Judy Filner, Attorney, ADR Team, US Postal Service, and attended by representatives from 28 federal agencies. The session opened at 11:00 a.m. and concluded at 1:00 p.m.

 

The goals of this session were: a) to provide participants with a general understanding of a federal workplace Ombuds Office, its benefits, and how it relates to other agency offices such as EEO, HR, OGC, EAP, LR, ER and unions; b) to discuss lessons learned in designing and implementing federal workplace Ombuds Offices including legal and union issues; and c) to provide descriptions of a variety of federal workplace Ombuds Offices.

 

Panel members included Leah Meltzer, SEC, Howard Gadlin, former Ombuds for UCLA and current Ombuds for the National Institutes of Health; and Robert Henry, Ombuds for the U.S. Information Agency, International Bureau of Broadcasting.

 

Ms. Meltzer began the morning with an overview of the role of the Ombuds. The ombuds should be a highly placed agency employee who is neutral (outside the normal management control structure) and provides confidential and informal assistance to employees in resolving work-related concerns. The Ombuds serves both management and non-management employees as a confidential and informal information resource, communications channel, complaint-handler and dispute-resolver. His/her role can be to help an organization recognize trends, surfacing potential problems or issues and recommending changes. The Ombuds has no power to direct that actions be taken or undone, rather he or she recommends and persuades.

 

The four essential characteristics of an Ombuds position are:

Independence

Neutrality

Confidentiality

Ability to look into matters.

A federal workplace Ombuds office may be most effective:

1. if an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) agency office is beleaguered with complainants who are not presenting EEO matters.

2. if an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) office is receiving workplace complaints that are outside the EAP office's mandate.

3. if the personnel-related offices are not working together as a team.

4. if employee morale is low.

5. if communications between employees and management are suffering.

6. if management is caught by surprise by the emergence of significant workplace issues.

7. if management and unions are constantly at loggerheads.

8. if an agency has been faced with numerous claims of retaliation.

 

 

Howard Gadlin then described the history of the Ombuds office at NIH. This program is new, having begun with a pilot. NIH, like all federal agencies, is unique and any Ombuds program must reflect and meet the unique needs of the agency. In this case, a large percentage of the disputes arise out of the scientific research work which NIH does. (For example, disputes might be over who gets credit for an article, or who collaborates on a research project.) NIH also has an EEO dispute resolution program run by Ms. Dorothea Taylor Kennedy. The Ombuds office coordinated the development of its program with EEO, EAP, Union and other dispute resolution activities taking place on the NIH campus, negotiating roles and responsibilities with each sector already serving employee needs. Mr. Gadlin described how he has worked with each of these sectors to negotiate responsibilities in general and on a case specific basis. He emphasized the importance of getting to know these offices, and the functioning, culture, rules, regulations, resources and people in the organization. He also described his Apro-active@ problem-solving approach which includes culture dialogues, partnering, and stakeholder committees.

 

Robert Henry concluded the formal presentations by describing the development of his Ombuds Office. He focused on the importance of trust-building with management and non-management employees. He views his role as assisting parties to solve problems while he remains non-confrontational, and available to both sides. Mr. Henry outlined ways an Ombuds can react to problems by serving as a source of information about the agency, and can proactive by gently suggesting change within the agency. His success then depends on trust-building and being respected for his knowledge of the agency. Mr. Henry suggested that one could become an ombuds either by having knowledge and experience in the work of being an ombuds, or by knowing an agency or company very well, and learning the roles and responsibilities while on the job.

 

Following and during their remarks, panel members answered audience questions, and participants engaged in dialogue among themselves and with the panelists.