ML20148U065

Proposal for Reviewing Allegations of Discrimination in Equal Employment Opportunity.Recommends Study to Be Undertaken by Outside Contractor Secured Thru Agency'S Procurement Procedures

ML20148U065
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/25/1978
From:	Kelley J, Pedersen K, Tucker E NRC OFFICE OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812060251
Download: ML20148U065 (22)

Text

g* **Ch hM [d*

je. ,4 UNITED STATES $

,, K ,

$ kk,#. *, , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSTONm- e n..

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• dI -/D 'UdD COPY e y,..; .y 7

% 'O e October 25, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford ommissioner Ahearne 4

FRGM: g Pe ersen, Director, Office of Policy Evaluation M s sell- , Acting General Counsel M {T g , Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

SUBJECT:

PROPOSAL FOR REVIEWING ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION IN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

Background:

On October 10, 1978, the Com=1ssion requested the offices of General Counsel, Policy Evaluation and Equal Employment Opportunity to develop a proposal for reviewing allegations of discrimination in equal employment opportunity at NRC. Allegations concerning the agency's halidling of audits were assumed not to be a part of this review. This paper responds to that request and is comprised of the following elements:

1. A draf t statement of work for aedhii:plishing'such a review has been I

prepared (see Enclosure A). Since audits would not be included in the study, it was assumed that the study would not be used in the s class action. With minor modifications it could provide the basis  ;

for an in-house study or a request for proposals from outside con-tractors interested in performing the study. A major source of input for the statement of work, as well as for the assessment of data availabilities (Enclosure C) and illustrative analyses (Enclosure D),

came from ED0's Task Force on EE0 Assessment, set up in September, 1978, to identify personnel policies and procedures whica may give rise to discrimination and to determine the availability of data to

. assess these policies and procedures. -

2. Two alternatives-in-house study or outside contractor-are analyzed in terms of estimated resource requirements, period of study perfor-mance, time to study completion and credibility. Based on this analysis, we have recommended that the Cc= mission approve the out-side contractor approach.

CONTACT:

7812050$GG Pat Camella (OPE) a7I 634-3295 s Steve Ostrach (OGC) 634-3224 Ken Jackson (EEO) 492-7697-k

, , For ,the Comission -

3. Legal considerations concerning the conduct of the study and the handling of study findings and reco=mendations are discussed.

Study Approach: The attached draf t statement of work describes a general approach to analyzing specific issues derived from allegations of EE0 -

discrimination. The allegations are contained in the folleving documents:

SECY-78-545, " Sex Discrimination in NRC"; SECY-78-535, " Class Complaint of Discrimination Filed by NRC Employee"; SECY-78-478, " Meeting with Black Professional Employees"; SEC.-78-473, " Age Discrimination in NRC";

Woolley to Anderson memorandum of March 1,1978, entitled, " Survey Report";

Rowe to Tucker memorandum of October 10, 1978, entitled, "EE0 Program Evaluation Criteria and Associated Data Elements." The issues proposed for analysis are listed in Enclosure B. They were reviewed and commented upon by the rederal Women's Program Coordinator, members of the ED0's Task Force on Equal Employment Opportunity, and representatives of the Federal Wocaen's Program Advisory Committee, the Affir=ative Action Advisory Committee, the Ad Hoc Committee on Age Discrdmination, and the NRC Com-mittee of Black Professionals. .

The analytic approach would include asse=bling and evaluating data, including comparatice occupational data, and making recemmendations. Both .

qualitative and quantitative techniques would be required to evaluate these issues adequately, although the emphasis may very likely have to be on qualitative analysis due to the limitations on the availability of quantitative data in a study of short duration. Since NRC's personnel '

and employment policies, practices and, procedures underlie all of the issues identified, suggestions would be s'ought to effect future i= prove-ments in these areas. Also, techniques for. routinely monitoring NRC efforts to achieve equal employment opportunity would be identified. . .

Alt.ernatives Analysis: A study of the kind described in the statement of work would probably require about four months to complete from the time the study actually commences. It would not include the initial in-house effort to collect data and strip them of personally identifying charac- .,

teristics. This data problem is discussed in the legal considerations section. O&P has estimated that this essentially manual data gathering, l conducted in conjunction with a data gathering effort for the class action, may occupy at least 1,500 staff-hours over a three-four month period of .

tim i, assu=ing an extended work week and authorized overtime (see Enc osure E). .

The study effort would include obtaining an understanding of NRC's current personnel and e.mployment policies, practices and procedures; specifying in detail the techniques to be employed in the issues analyses; organizing and analyzing the more readily obtainable data; asse=bling and analyzing comparative occupational data; developing and implementing the longer-term data collection techniques; and developing findings and suggestions r

v ~.#

s For'the Co==ission for inprovement. It would not include the conduct of any analyses using the more difficult-to-obtain data, the i=plementation of any monitoring procedures or contractor participation in carrying out suggestions adopted for i=provement. However, the study could be optionally extended at the Commission's discretion and at additional cost to include some or all of -

these efforts. Building such options into the original solicitation could increase its attractivenuess to prospective offerors and thus broaden the competition to Commission advantage.

In addition to the period of performance it is necessary to consider the time needed for preparatory arrangements prior to study commencement.

Usually, an in-house study requires less t1me to get underway than a study

• that is contracted out. However, because a competitive

• procurement would probably take about four months to complete;** and because, as noted earlier, it is estimated that a three-four month effort--which could be carried out concurrently with the procurement process--is requ'i fed to collect and strip data before any etudy starts, the dif ference in pre-paration times for the in-house study and the contracted-out study would not be significant.

Such a study would require management analysts familiar with personnel administration and highly skilled in investigate work of the kind needed to produce worthwhile and reliable qualitative analyses; applied statis-

, ticians and computing analys ts; as,, vel 1, as data ,t.echnicians, and clerical support, including data e.ntry clerks. , The use.of a computer would also be involved. The minimal level of effdrt for a four months study, excluding clerica.*. suport would probably be about 24 staff _ months. _But it must be e=phasized this is only a very rough estimate, given the limited time <

available to prepare this proposal and based on rather optimistic assumptions 8-concerning the number of interviews that would have to be conducted, the quality of data obtained, and the extent to which the data would have to be manipulated manually. If the Commission accepts our proposal in principle, it would be important to develop a better estimate of the level of effort expected as a basis for allocating resources to an in-house study or for preparing a solicitation and evaluating proposals.

Given the uncertainties in data needs and quality, however, it is likely ,

that any esti=ates will remain rough and that any contract will be prone to cost overruns and schedule slippages.

If the study is performed under contract, additional NRC resource require-ments would arise from the need to select a contractor competitively, to provide technical oversight, and possibly to provide on a continuing basis

• As noted below a sole source approach does not appear to be a viable or desirable option.

• • This would include issuance of the solicitation, advertising in the Commerce Business Daily, a 30-day period for preparation of the proposals, ,

evluations of proposals, oral discussions with offerors and award of the contract.

I For.the Commission NRC personnel for manually retrieving and stripping data. Since these NRC requirements could be rather substantial, we suggest they too be more carefully defined by those staff who would be directly involved in the study.

Credibility is another consideration. It would be difficult to perform the study in-house without relying heavily for expertise on personnel whose own offices or functions may be subject to study. Various constituency groups within NRC have stated to us what they believed there would. be an inevitable conflict-of-interest if the study were performed in-house. This credibility issue also arises in the case of the sole-source procurement.'

Since there are potentially many firms who can perform such studies, there will be concern if one firm is singled out for a sole-source procurement.

Therefore, in terms of credibility, competitive procurement is the most -

acceptable alternative.

Legal Considerations: This paper suggests an approach for a review of various allegations of discrimination within the com 4ssion. Although the discrimination complaint filed by Ms. Slater forms one basis for this inquiry, the Commission is not legally required to cenduct any such review at this time. Therefore, you have the legal ability to structure the review as you deem appropriate. The results of the review, especially the conclusions and recommendations which a contractor may express, will not be binding on you as a matter of law, although you may choose, as a matter of policy to ratify some or all of the reco=mendations =ade after the review has been completed. ,.Turther, the statistical results *'

of the review will be matters of public record and, depending on the nature of those results, might prompt initi'acion of additional EIO com-plaints or legal actions.

Some privacy problems may arise from an effort to gather data manually from personnel records. The Privacy Act places restrictions on the use of information contained in files bearing an individual's na=e, without that individual's prior written consent. It will not be practical to 6 obtain such consents from all of the individuals whose records may be analyted in :he discrimination review. Therefore, the information will have to be provided to the data collectors in a form that does not identify individual employees (see 10 CFR 9.80(a)(5)). Stripping the files of personally identifying information may delay the data collection portion of the review.

Another potential legal issue is whether the review called for in this paper is consistent with the Commission's overall policy on treatment of discrimination complaints currently contained in Appendix 4158 of the AIC Manual.* The Manual addresses resolution of specific complaints (individual or grcup) rather than the type of general review conte = plated in this paper.

• No NRC Manual chapter has yet been issued on EEO, so the AIC Manual remains in force. ,

For. the co._ ission However, the Manual is consistent with the general policy approach sug-gested in this paper. See AEC Manual Appendix 4158, Part VI C (1) and Part VI E(6). We note that testimony given in the investigation of an EE0 complaint may not be disclosed to anyone other than the agency officials investigating the complaint, unless the EE0 officer _autho.rizes_such_ release _ _.-

in accordance_v'th the procedures of 10 CFR Part 9 1see_AEC Janual_ Appendix 411 h J m ), However, as discussed above, persons conducting the study ou'1.ined in this paper will have to comply with Privacy Act regula-clons (t 10 CFR Part 9). Therefore, the non-disclosure provision -

presents nu Tdditional ' problem.

The policy reasons for selecting a reviewer through competitive bidding are discussed elsewhere. As a legal matter, you could dispense with com-petitive bidding only if it would be impractical to secure competition.

It would be difficult to make the necessary showing and so the NRC might -

inadvertently extend the process because of a legal challenge to a non-competitive award.

Recommendation: We recommend that a study along the lines described in -

Enclosure A and focusing on the issues in Enclosure B be undertaken. We alao recommend that the study be carried out by an outside contractor secured through the agency's competitive procurement procedures. If the Commission approves this approach, Enclosure A will have to be expanded and more fully staffed (e.g., regarding the data availability problem, NRC resource requirements and study level of effort), to serve as the I

1 core of an RFP. .?4 s

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Lee V. Gossick Sam Chilk 4

e

i,/

. APPROACH TO STUDY OF EE0 ISSUES A. Background and Purpose The Commission is firmly committed to developing and implementing an affirmative action program which effectively contributes to equal employ- ,

ment opportunity for all persons and which is consistent with the agency's mission to protect the public health and safety, the national security and the environment through the regulation of civilian uses of nuclear energy.

In a recent series of formal meetings with various officials and groups

• vithin the agency, the Commission has received allegations wh1ch may indi-cate that its personnel and e=ployment programs, practices and procedures ,

have not been effective in a number of areas with respect to assuring equal employment opportunity for all NRC employees to which the agency has committed itself. The agency's handling of audits is the subject of a -

class complaint of discrimination now before the Civil Service Commission.

. z. . .

The purpose of this study is to review other allegations regarding employ-l ment discrimination to determine the extent to which these allegations may have merit. Where it is determined that problems exists, the Co= mission is anxious to ifentify and implement changes for improving equal employment opportunity at NRC consistent with NRC's mission. _..,

B. 'Overall Studv Auproach Enclosure B sets forth a list of issues derived from allegations obtained from a variety of sources. Some care has been exercised to state the issues in a manner which permits them to be analyzed objectively, either by qualitative or quantitative =eans. Wherever possible both types of analysis

• E.g., Director, Office of Equal E=ployment Opportunity, the NRC Co ittee of Black Professionals, and the Federal Women's Program Advisory Co=mittee.

4

. Enclosure A should be pcrformed. It is expected that the qualitative analysis would help to characterize fully the issue in a manner which facilitates con-sideration of options for improvement; while the quantitative analysis will help to indicate the extent to which the problem is significant at NEC.

It is recognized, however, that data which permit quantitative analysis may not exist or be readily available either at NRC or in data bases of comparative occupctional data. In such cases, data and data-collection mechan 1sms, including those involving comparative occupational data, which allow such analyses to be performed in the future, should be identified.

Enclosure C gives a highly tentative indication of the present availability of data. The list is, of necessity, not complete.

It is reasonable to assume that much of the qualitative data would be developed through formal, structured nterviews, specifically designed to explore the attitudes of NRC employees. Case histories of formal EE0 com-plaints, as documented in records developed by the Office of Inspector and Auditor, may serve as another source of qualitative data. NRC's Affirmative Action Advisory Conmittee has also compiled some data which may be useful.

Data aggregated for the DOE class action may also provide some background information. Further, it is expected that quantitative data would b'e subjected to statistically valid analyses. This would probably require the use of the computer. Examples of the kinds of analyses desired are provided in Enclosure D. It should be noted that this list is not regarded as in any way definitive or restrictive, and we would expect those con-ducting the study to suggest other mechanisms for accomplishins its goals.

{

Enclosure A Once significant problem areas have been identified, suggestions which better foster the achievement of equal employment opportunity would be developed, with an analysis of the impacts and value of isplementing ench .

suggestion. Additionally, suggestions would be developed for monitoring future progress in the achievement of equal employment opportunity within NRC.

C. Task Deceriotions and Recuirements Task 1: Issues Development la. Understanding NRC's Current Personnel and Emolovment Policies, Practices and Procedures NRC's personnel and employment policies, practices and procedures lie at the heart of the issues identified in Enclosure B. For example, questions concerning non-competitive promotion practices, merit selection practices and procedures, the vacancy announcement ystem, position classification procedures, outside recruitment and hiring and interview practices underlie the selection and advancement issues. Consequently, obtaining an understanding of these policies, practices and procedures is a necessary first step in conducting this study.

Ib. Detailed Analvtic Aceroach and Data Recuirements One part of the study must be to identify specifically types of analyses necessary to investigate adequately each issue. This should include the documentation of analytic constraints , data requirements, and statistical tests of significance to be performed.

Where possible, both qualitative and quantitative approaches should I

Enclosure A be specified. Where interviews are to be conducted, the for=at, data objectives and personnel to be interviewed should be specified.

Data requirements and collection techniques should also be detailed ,

as well as any computing requirements, including estimated costs.

Because the data required for the analyses may not be available within the period of performance of the study, the time-frame for-accomplishing each analysis should be specified. As noted earlier, a tentative list of possible analytic approaches is found in Enclosure D and a tentative list of data requirements in Enclosure C.

Issues should be recast wherever necessary to facilitate analysis, to provide clear definitions of ter=s,* and to reflect the under-scandings obtained in Task la. g, These refined issues would be reviewed by the NRC Contracting Officer's Technical Representar.ive i

(C0TR) to assure that they reflect substantially the same concerns as the original fomulation. The COTR would also approve a final list of issues and the analytic methods appropriate to each.

Task 2: Analysis of Issues Analyses which could be accomplished during the initial period of perfor-mance of the study would be co=pleted during this task. This effort would involve organization of the data into the forms identified in Task lb as suitable for analysis. It is likely that much of the data would have to

• E. g. , " systematically hindered" (Issue H.1. ) , " adequate assurance" (Issue A.4.), "' low' advancement potential" (Issue D.3.a. ) , "'high' advancement potential" (Issues D. 3.b. ) .

Enclosure A a be stored in a form which permits computer analysis. Statistical tests of significance would be performed and docu=ented.

Efforts would also be undertaken to establish the collection and storage mechanisms which would permit development of the data base needed to perform those analyses approved under Task lb for which data did not exit. during the initial period of performance. Requirements for the collection and storage of these data would be fully documented. At the discretion of the Commission the period of performance could be extended to permit additional -

analyses to be conducted as data became available.

Task 3: Findings and Suggestions for I=orovement Findings based upon the Task 2 analyses would be prepared. Using these findings, suggestions for i= proving hRC's personnel and employment policies, l practices and procedures would be dev oped and docunented. The improvement in terms of both effect and magnitude of effect expected would be documented for each suggestion. Included in this task also would be suggestions, including associated data requirements, for monitoring NRC's future efforts.

to achieve equal e=ployment opportunity.

O

- - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___ _ _

EE0 ISSUES * -

A. Selection and Advancement

1. Are equal treatment and consideration given to women, blacks and other ninorities in promotions? (CA-a, BP-1)**

2. Do women, blacks and other minorities spend a longer time in grade than their w&1te male counterparts? (CA-a, BP-2)

3. Do the merit promotion and non-competitive promotion processes -

favor the selection of white males over women, blacks and other minorities who are similarly qualified to perform the job? (CA-a, BP-1) For example, are requirements listed in posted vacancy

'nnouncements unnecessarily restrictive and do they in effect '

a limit the area of consideration? (BP-1) Do white male supervisors promote disproportionately other white males over similarly qualified women, blacks and other minorities? (CA-f) Are some vacancy announcements targeted for particular individuals? (BP-1)

Do disproportionately more white males reach the top of their

• occupational series than women, blacks and other =inorities with comparable education, training and experience? (CA-c, BP-1) 4

4. Does the present vacancy announcement system provide adequate assurance that all potential NRC candidates--particularly women, blacks and other minorities--are being advised of openings?

(CA-1)

. i.

5. Is older age a negative factor in selection for promotion? (AD)

6. Are qualified women, blacks and other minorities employed by NRC being passed over for select 1on in favor of white = ales from outside the NRC? (SR-3)

7. Are qualified women, blacks and other minorities interviewed less frequently for vacancies than their white male counterparts?

(SR-3)

/-

8. Is the content of interviews of women different from that for males? (SR-3)

• Sexual harassment on the job was raised as an allegation in SECY-78-545, but is not included in this list of EE0 issues, as we believe it is more appropriately the subject of an internal investigation.

• fLegends in parentheses reference document allegations as follows:

CA - SECY-78-535, " Class Complaint of Discrimination Filed by NRC Employee" BP - SECY-78-478, " Meeting with Black Professional Employees" AD - SECY-78-473, " Age Discri=ination in NRC" SR - Woolley to Anderson memorandum of March 1,1978 and Enclosure 1 of SECY-78-545, " Sex Discrimination in NRC" PR - Rowe.to Tucker memorandum of October 10, 1978

' Enclosure B 3. Hiring and Recruitment Practices

1. Do present hiring and recruit =ent practices seek out qualified women, blacks and other minorities in each specality needed by the Co= mission? (BP-3) ,

C. Ecual Comnensation for Ecual Work -

1. Do women, blacks and other minoritius have the same rank, title and pay as white males who have the same responsibilities? (CA-b)

2. Are women, blacks and other minorities better qualified than white males who are performing the same or similar jobs? (CA-c, SP-3)

D. Under-utilization

1. Are the work and occupational assignments of women, blacks and other minorities comparable to those of white males with cocparable training, education and experience? (CA-c , CA-b )

2. Are the work and occupational assignments of older workers com-parable to those of younger workers with comparable training, education and experience? (AD) 3a. Are there disproportionate numbers of women, blacks and other minorities assigned to (placediin) or transferred into work groups and job categories with " low" advan. cement potential when compared to white males with comparable education, training and experience?

(CA-h) 3b. Conversely, are there disproportionate numbers of white males assigned or transferred into work groups and job categories with "high" advancement potential when compared to women, blacks and other minorities with comparable education, training and experience?

l (CA-h) l l E. Discrimination Comolaints Procedures

1. Are procedures for handling e=ployee discri=1 nation complaints effective, fair and efficient? (CA-d , CA-j , CA-k)

F. Superviserv/ Subordinate Relationships

1. In contrast to white males are women, blacks and other minorities treated unequally by their supervisors? (CA-e) Specifically, is there evidence of discriminatory conduct with respect to awards and rer.ognition, disciplinary and adverse actions, leave ad=inis-tration, perquisites, special administrative requirements? (?R)

Enclosure B -

3-

2. Do disproportionately greater numbers of women, blacks and other minorities receive unfavorable perfor=ance appraisals when compared

'o their white male counterparts? (CA-f, BP-7)

3. Do disproportionately greater numbers of older persons receive unfavorable performance appraisals when compared to younger '

persons? (AD)

4. Are supervisors sensitive to and supportive of women's career aspirations? (SR-3)

G. Senior Level Positions i

1. Are women, blacks and other minorities with supervisory or manage-ment potential identified and advanced into such positions less frequently than comparably qualified white sales? (BP enclosure,

" Equal Hiring and Promotional Opportunity for Black Professionals .

at NRC"; SR, first page)

2. Are women, blacks and other minorities systematically deterred from gaining senior grade levels? (CA) l H. Training l

l 1. Has the NP.C discriminated against women, blacks and other minorities in the manner in which it has:' applied policy, statute and i=ple-menting regulations (the Government,E=ployees Training Act, Federal Personnel Manual 410, and the AEC/NRC Manual Chapter 4150)?

2. Have women, blacks and other minorities been systematically hindered i from gaining access to training and education programs designed to enhance opportunity for career advancement? (CA) .,

b

3. Are women, blacks and other minorities given time off to upgrade their own skills less frequently than white males? (CA-1)

4. Has the NRC, in developing intra-agency training programs and l courses, discriminated against women, blacks and other minorities '

by targeting these courses and programs to white males, in particular professionals, without appropriate basis or demonstrated need? I l

5. Are qualified women, blacks and other minorities being excluded (

from high-level staff meetings and informal planning sessions at l which co=parably qualified white males are present? (CA-g) i I. Reduction-in-Force

1. Do reduction-in-force procedures discriminate against women and

=inori' ties? (CA-1)

O

. DATA AVAILABILITY ,

l Factor Data Available j l

'I . Selections for Career Appointment Manually retrievable. Certificate showing i candidates retained for 2 years in Opera-tions Branch, O&P. Qualifications and sex.

of competitors usually available in file.

Race of. candidates not identifiable except for internal candidates still on board whose race can be identified in EE0 records.

2. Selections for Temocrary Same as above.

Accointm.ent

3. Selections for Comoetitive Same as above.

Promotions

4. Selections for Noncomoetitive All employees and former employees "up-Promotions ("uogradings") graded" noncompetitively since January 1975 can be manually identified via NRC-50.

chronological files maintained in Operatior Branch. Sex and age are shown. Race of current employees can be manually identi-fied in EE0 records.

1

5. Recommendations for Government - , cF.iles covering NRC's recommendations for Wice Awards Government-wide awards (such as Arthur

. Fleming Award) are maintained in the LM&ER Branch. Files cover recomendations mace since January 1975. Sex, age or race are not identified but could be manually derived (for current employees) from other; records. Note that these records do not necessarily include recommendations which were rejected by Office or Division Di rectors.

6. ' Incentive Awards Granted _ Files covering each NRC Honorary Award and Special Achievement Award granted 1975, are filed in LM&ER' 1

" B ra~n cWO'&P'.since January ~5eidieSoE6ce~

~

identi fied but could be. m_arlually_.datived-7fo_r_ current emoloy_eet)_.f.com.nt.her eecer.ds,-

These file.s in *1ude recommendatinnt whi Ch .

were rejected by LM&ER Branch. However, j reco=nendations which were rejected by PMS's or by Office or Division Directors are not included and nowhere comoiled.

I

-7. Quality Steo Increase' Same as above.

Enclosure C Factor Data Available a Adverse Actions Same as Above. l (cnange to lower grade, l suspension and removal for cause) and appeals i '

of such actions a Within-orade Denials and Apoeals Same as above.

> Teminations of Temocraries -

LM&ER Branch has incomplete files on (for cause) these actions. Complete files are nowher compiled.

> M:mos of Admonition and Letters Same as above. Note that memos of Admo  ;

of Reorimand nition are not filed in employee's l Official Personnel Folder. Letters of l Reprimand are filed in OPF for maximum of j three years. j e Grievances The LM&ER Branch has a file on each (Botn tnose filed under NRC grievance which was elevated to the procedure and the negotiated second level, or higher, since January agreement) 1975. (Grievances to the first level are

'normally verbal and nowhere compiled.) )

Files do not nornally reveal sex, age or )

race but these facts could be manually '

derived (for current employees) from other records.

p Annual Perfomance Aooraisals Note that current annual appraisal I system is based on narrative evaluation i which is impossible - or at least l exceedingly difficult - to quantify.

l Copies of all annual appraisals are ,

l maintained by Operations Branch. They '

! are destrcyed after one year or when subsequent appraisal is received, which-ever is later.

Turnover or Attrition Operations Branch chronological files include a copy of each NRC-50 documenting l each separation since January,1975.

These copies show " reasons" each empicyee gave for resignation. Age and sex are I '

shown but race is not available. (Note:

employees' " reasons" are typically not l

explicit) l

i .

Enclosure C -

3-Factor Data Available arage

~

Grade PARIS *is now being programmed to report average grade of minorities and females,-

by Office.

. Desk Audits The Operations Branch now l'ogs each desk audit perfontied. Records show position number, relevant data on the incumbent including sex, race, and age (but not including name), and outcome of the audit.

"A management information system.

. i.

e 9

ILLUSTRATIVE QUANIITATIVE ANALYSES A. Selection and Advancement

-- Comparison of distributions of promotions awarded by race, sex, and age arrayed Commiasion-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade ~

level controlling for education, work experience, appraisals, and length of service.

-- Co=parison of distribution of promotions denied by race, sex, and age arrayed Commission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for education, work experience, appraisals, and length of service.

~~ ~

.C @ R1'sp_n__o_f ]ihe~1n gr'a'de,)e s en pr~omotioni~by_,ra,ce,'sexf,and agel ,

arrayed Commission-wide and by of fice, occupation group, and grade ~

level controlling for education, work experience, appraisals, and length of service.

B. Hiring and Recruitment Practices

\

-- Comparison of distribution of applicants rejected by race, sex, and  ;

age arrayed Commission-wide and by of fice, occupation group, and grade level controlling for education, work experience, and references.

-- Comparison of distribution of new hires by race, sex, and age arrayed Cocsiss1on-wide and by office, occOp'ation group, and grade level con- .

trolling for education, work experience, and references.

C. Ecual Comnensation for Ecual Work

-- Comparisons of distributions of hiring salary exceptions by race, sex, and age arrayed Co==ission-wide and by office, occupation group, and ,

grade level controlling for education and experience.

-- Comparison of distributions of administratively determined pay races by race, sex, and age arrayed Co==ission-wide, and by office, occu-pational group, and grade level controlling for education and experience. -

D. Surervis'rv/_ Subordinate Relationships ,

Awards and < r , guition: I'

-- Comparison of distributions of awards granted by race, sex, and age artayed Co==ission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for appraisals and length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions of disapproved awards by race, sex, and age arrayed Co==ission-wide and by of fice, occuption group, and grade level controlling for appraisals and length of service.

9

• Enclosure D Disciplinary and Adverse Actions:

-- Co=parison of distributions of disciplinary actions by race, sex, and age arrayed Com=ission-wide and by office, occupation group and grade level controlling for appraisals, tenure, and length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions of adverse actions proposed by race, sex, and age arrayed Co:=nssion-wide and by of fice, occupation group, and grade level controlling for appraisals, tenure, and length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions of adverse actions taken by race, sex, and '

age arrayed Commission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for appraisals, tenure, and length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions of adverse actions sustained by race, sex, and age arrayed Commission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for appraisals, tenurc, and length of service.

Grievances:

-- Comparison of distributions of grievances filed by race, sex, and age arrayed Cot =ission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for disciplinary history and length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions of grievances settled by race, sex, and age arrayed- Commission-wide and by of fice, occupation group, and grade level controlling for disciplinary history and, length of service.

Leave Administration:

-- Comparison of distributions of advanced leave requests approved by race, sex, and age arrayed Co==ission-wide, and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for tenure, appraisals, and length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions of advanced leave requests disapproved by race, sex, and age arrayed Commission-wide, and by of fice, occupation group, and grade level controlling for tenure, appraisals, and length of service.

Perquisites:

-- Comparison of distributions of office space by race, sex, and age arrayed Co= mission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for supervisory status, time in grade, and length of service.

-- Cemparison of distributions of special allowances by race, sex, and age arrayed Co==1ssion-wide and by of fice, occupation group, and grade level controlling for supervisory status, time in grade, and leng:h of service.

~ Enclosura D Special Administrative Requirements:

-- Comparison of distributions of time and attendance require =ents by race, sex, and age arrayed Co=nission-wide, and by office, occupation group, '

and grade level controlling for supervisory status, timc in grade, e.nd length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions of special approval requirements by race, sex, end age arrayed Commission-wide, and by of fice, occupation group, and grade level controlling for supervisory status, time in grade, and.

length of service.

Performance Appraisal:

-- Co=parison of distributions of perfor=ance racings by race, sex, and age arrayed Commission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for education, experience, and length of service.

E. Training Training and Career Development:

-- Comparison of distribtulons of approved training by race, sex, and age arrayed Cc mission-s .de and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for education, appraisals, and length of service.

-- Cocparison of distributions of disapproved training by race, sex, and age arrayed Co=nission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for education, appraisals, and length of service.

-- Comparison of distributions for developmental assignments by race, sex, and age arrayed Commission-wide and by office, occupation group, and grade level controlling for education, appraisals, and length of service.

4 l

y - - - __ _

?- NUCLEAR REGULATOl'Y COMMisslON 5 'h. .M. '*

h WASHlfeGTON, O ':,20553 Y%dj!l'f a me .

s . .:...

MEMORAND';M FOR: Edward E. Tucker, Director -

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity l FROM: Calvin C. Jones, Director Division of Organization and Perconnel

SUBJECT:

CLASS COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION FILED BY AN NRC EMPLOY'EE In our meeting with Tom Reba yesterday afternoon, he asked that O&P prepare remarks for inclusion in a memorandum from you to Ken Pedersen dealing with the Agency's plan of action on the' class complaint of discrimination filed by Ms. Dorothy M. Slater.

The portion of the class complaint dealing with job audits will require a search of all current employee official personnel files (OPF) and the gatSering of information on former female employees since the inception of the Agency in January 1975. O&P did not maintain a job audit log until just recently. Therefore', the compilation of meaningful data on job audits )

will necessitate a manual search, the results of which will generally )

include only those jobs that were formally audited and documented accordingly. l It will not include those positions wh'ich were audited and found to substan- I tiate the requested grade levels. In this situation, no formal audit documentation is normally prepared.  ;

Recognizing at some point the physical review of the officiai personnel files will be necessary, it also appears feasible at the time of the OPF review, to gather other data mentioned in the. class action which probably will be required. Such data would include information on training, promotion rate and entry salary rates. A conservative estimate for review time for each official personnel file is 1/2 hour. About 3,000 files would have to be reviewed (includes regular full-time, part-time and temporary appoOitment employees). Thus, the total time involved would be approximately 1,500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br />. A draft of the checklist for the OPF review is attached. The Per-sonnel Management Specialists would be the primary reviewers of the official personnel files. Several approaches could be utilized in accomplishing the review task, but with tne current workload and heavy overtime already being experienced in the Personnel Operations Branch, it is estimated that the PMS could not spend more than two to three hours per day and weekends on ,

this task. Consequently, completion time would be in the range of three to

- four months from the starting date. It will also be necessary to reduce the' data for computer application in order to provide the " bottom line" information desired. Because of the dimension and extended time period

. Edward E. Tucker required to gather'this information, it has been proposed to place O&P i professional staff and. clerical suppurt individuals on a formal extended work week which would permit payment for the hours worked in excess of the normal 40 bcurs per week.

l Consideration should be given also to the possibility of delaying the OPF -l review task until it is.known in more detail what information will be required. opefully, this would eliminate the probability of having-to review the OPF's a second time, if in the course of the proceedings, infor-mation'would be required from the OPF's which'was not gathered on the initial review, Please let me know if additional information - ,

is re, quired. ,/

\

l i3{ i ,

Calvin C. Jones, Director Division of Organization and Personnel l

l

Attachment:

Draft of checklist for OPF review 3 l

. J i

l 1

l l

.. -OPF INFORMATION Sex. MC

'EOD DATI DOB .

Degree / Year .gon Occupational Series Grade / Step / Salary Based on Righest Previous Race? (ves/no) ,

S11ary Exception? ~ ,(yes/n6) (If yes, attach copy) l Age at hire 1

, Hired from: Private sector Fed. Gov't - School l AUDIT DATA Evidence of job audit? (yes/no) i I

(If yes, attach copy, in ciuding report, 181, 772, etc.)

TRAINING DATA Course ,.

Date Cost Duty hrs. (yei

.?4 j I

l l

)

l 1

a e

PROMOTION DATA' Competitive / Ti=e in Pre-Date Grade /Steo Occ. Series Salary non/coceec. vious Grade (yes/no) (yrs /=os) l l

. . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _