[Senate Hearing 117-412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-412
NOMINATIONS OF HON. ERNEST W. DUBESTER,
HON. SUSAN T. GRUNDMANN, AND
KURT T. RUMSFELD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF HON. ERNEST W. DUBESTER TO BE A MEMBER,
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
HON. SUSAN T. GRUNDMANN TO BE A MEMBER, FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY, AND KURT T. RUMSFELD TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
__________
OCTOBER 20, 2021
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-979PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
Claudine J. Brenner, Counsel
Nikta Khani, Research Assistant
Anthony J. Papian, Senior Professional Staff Member
Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
Amanda H. Neely, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
Samantha Onofry, Minority Counsel
James D. Mann, Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Government
Operations and Border Management
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Sinema............................................... 1
Senator Lankford............................................. 1
Senator Peters............................................... 11
Senator Rosen................................................ 13
Senator Hawley............................................... 15
Prepared statements:
Senator Sinema............................................... 21
Senator Lankford............................................. 22
WITNESSES
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
Hon. Ernest W. DuBester to be a Member, Federal Labor Relations
Authority
Testimony.................................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Biographical and professional information.................... 25
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 46
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 49
Hon. Susan T. Grundmann to be a Member, Federal Labor Relations
Authority
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Biographical and professional information.................... 68
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 87
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 91
Kurt T. Rumsfeld to be General Counsel, Federal Labor Relations
Authority
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Biographical and professional information.................... 107
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 129
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 132
APPENDIX
Letter of support from American Federation of Government
Employees...................................................... 146
Letter of support from National Treasury Employees Union......... 148
NOMINATIONS OF
HON. ERNEST W. DUBESTER,
HON. SUSAN T. GRUNDMANN, AND
KURT T. RUMSFELD
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., via
Webex, Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters, Hassan, Sinema, Rosen, Ossoff,
Portman, Lankford, Scott, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA
Senator Sinema. The Committee will come to order.
I welcome my fellow Members of the Committee. Today, we are
considering three nominations for the Federal Labor Relations
Authority (FLRA): Ernest DuBester and Susan Tsui Grundmann to
be members and Kurt Rumsfeld to be the General Counsel (GC).
I welcome all of you as well as your family members
watching online with us today. Congratulations on your
nominations and thank you for your willingness to take on these
critical positions. I look forward to hearing more about your
qualifications and your plans to lead this agency.
We do have a vote scheduled this morning at 11 a.m. So in
the interest of time, I will submit my opening statement for
the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Sinema appears in the
Appendix on page 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, I will call on Ranking Member Lankford for him
to begin with his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Thank you as well, Senator Sinema. I will
also submit my opening statement for the record\2\ for the
benefit of our time so we can move on directly to our
witnesses. Thank you for being here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The prepared statement of Senator Lankford appears in the
Appendix on page 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Senator.
Now it is the practice of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so, witnesses, if you will please stand and raise
your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. DuBester. I do.
Ms. Grundmann. I do.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. We will now hear from our
nominees, and I will ask each of our nominees to keep their
remarks to 5 minutes. Your full written statements will be
entered into the hearing record.
Our first nominee is Ernest DuBester. Mr. DuBester has been
a member of the FLRA since 2009 and has been unanimously
confirmed by the Senate 3 times during that period. He has
worked with both Democratic and Republican Presidents and board
members and has over 45 years of experience in Labor-Management
Relationships.
Welcome, Mr. DuBester, and you are recognized for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST W. DUBESTER,\1\ NOMINATED TO
BE A MEMBER, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
Mr. DuBester. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Lankford, Members of the Committee. I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to come before this Committee again for its
consideration of my nomination. I also want to thank the
Committee staff for their work and assistance in reviewing my
nomination and scheduling this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statemenet of Mr. Dubester appears in the Appendix
on page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have told the Committee before, I would also like to
mention that this body holds a special personal meaning in my
life because when I met my wife of now 33 years, Karen Kremer,
she was working for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I also want to recognize the dedicated public servants from
the FLRA. They are the key to the FLRA's many accomplishments
over the years, and if confirmed, I will continue to make their
morale and engagement a high priority.
As you mentioned, Madam Chair, this is, well actually, the
sixth time I have had the privilege to come before the Senate
after being nominated now by four Presidents for positions of
public trust. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, this is the fourth
time I have had the honor to come before this Committee after
now being renominated by President Biden.
As I often say, the FLRA is a small agency with a large
mission. It has the statutory responsibility to provide
leadership and guidance for the Labor-Management Relations
programs throughout the Executive Branch. The FLRA's work can
have meaningful rippling effects. If the FLRA is not performing
well, or is performing well, this enables other agencies to
more effectively and efficiently resolve their disputes and,
consequently, to focus their time and energy on their own
agency's mission accomplishment.
As you mentioned, Madam Chair, I have a lot of experience.
I am trying to mature gracefully. But I have worked as a public
servant, an advocate, a mediator and arbitrator, and an
academic, and over 30 of my 45 years of Labor-Management
Relations experience are in the Federal sector. I remain
strongly committed to the FLRA's mission and to the importance
of stable, constructive Labor-Management Relations in the
Federal sector. If confirmed, I will continue to work
tirelessly so that the FLRA is recognized by the Federal
sector's labor-management community as one of the most
effective and efficient agencies in the Federal Government.
So again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
this morning, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
that you have.
Senator Sinema. Thank you so much.
Our next nominee is Susan Tsui Grundmann. Ms. Grundmann has
spent the past 5 years as the Executive Director of the Office
of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR), where she has
overseen a complete modernization of the office operations.
During her tenure, the Office received bipartisan support to
increase the size of the staff and the budget. Previously, she
was the Senate-confirmed Chair of the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), where she issued more than 8,000 decisions.
Welcome and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN T. GRUNDMANN,\1\ NOMINATED TO
BE A MEMBER, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
Ms. Grundmann. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair,
Ranking Member Lankford, and distinguished Members of this
Committee. It is my honor and privilege to be here with you
today. I thank you and your staff for taking the time out to
review my qualifications for this position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Grundmann appears in the Appendix
on page 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also thank the staff of the FLRA for their administrative
and logistic support and patience during this process, and I
humbly thank President Biden for nominating me to serve in the
capacity as a member of the FLRA.
I am the first generation in my family to be born in this
country. My parents are both from China, and they gave me my
center. At my center is my family: My mother is still very much
with me today and hopefully taking this in virtually. My
husband of almost 30 years, Karl, continues to inspire me daily
to be a better lawyer and a kinder human being. And our
daughter, Milla, who always keeps me humble.
Looking back from where I started, I have come full circle.
I began my career in the Federal labor movement and my
representation of employees, including air traffic controllers
at the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)
and, later, employees throughout the Executive Branch at the
National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). After
representing unions, I became a third-party neutral as member
and chair of the MSPB and found myself sitting at the head of a
table of a Federal agency with a union of its own. Today, as
executive director to a nonpartisan Legislative Branch office,
I work for you, to administer the Congressional Accountability
Act (CAA) and the labor management program for congressional
employees, which is a parallel program to the FLRA.
Along the way, I built coalitions of various interests,
forged ties with both labor and management, and found
friendships across the aisle. Through it all, I have had the
opportunity to experience Labor-Management Relations from all
perspectives and to appreciate the complexity and the richness
that is inherent in this community.
If confirmed, I hope to bring these diverse viewpoints to
the FLRA. Thank you for the privilege of your time, and I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Sinema. Thank you so much, Ms. Grundmann.
Our final nominee is Kurt Rumsfeld. Mr. Rumsfeld has almost
30 years of experience in the labor-management field, with the
last 8 at FLRA, where he served as the Assistant General
Counsel. He left a private sector career because of his
commitment to public service, and he is a respected manager at
FLRA. His expertise is on the labor-management statutes and
managing a legal staff of the FLRA.
Welcome, Mr. Rumsfeld, and you are recognized for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF KURT T. RUMSFELD,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
Mr. Rumsfeld. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Lankford, and
Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the Committee for the purpose of being considered
for confirmation to the position of General Counsel at the
Federal Labor Relations Authority. It is a true honor to be
nominated for this position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Rumsfeld appears in the Appendix
on page 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a strong believer in the value of public service, the
policies promoted by the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, and the vital role played by the Office of
General Counsel (OGC) in administering and enforcing the
statute. The FLRA's General Counsel is responsible for
protecting and enforcing employee, union, and agency rights
under the statute by investigating unfair labor practice (ULP)
charges and prosecuting ULP complaints. The general counsel
also has direct authority over, and responsibility for, all
employees in the Office of General Counsel, including the
FLRA's regional offices which handle representation matters
before the Authority.
In furtherance of its mission, the Office of General
Counsel offers clear, accurate, and readily accessible training
and guidance to employees, unions, and agencies regarding their
labor relations rights and responsibilities. It also offers
assistance to parties in resolving their disputes regarding
those matters in a fair, consistent, and timely manner.
As I noted in my written responses to the Committee's
questions, the OGC currently faces a number of substantial
challenges. The FLRA has not had a Senate-confirmed general
counsel since January 2017, and it lacked an acting general
counsel between November 2017 and March 2021. This has resulted
in a significant backlog of unfair labor practice charges for
which complaints could not be filed and litigated in the
absence of a general counsel and, as well as, a backlog of
appeals from dismissals of ULP charges which could not be
decided.
Another challenge is the reduction of full-time equivalent
employees that the OGC has endured over the last several years.
Inadequate staffing obviously affects the OGC's ability to
address the ULP backlog, particularly since the OGC has lost
attorneys who had experience litigating ULP complaints, but it
has also adversely affected employee morale. Thanks to the
considerable efforts of the OGC employees under the leadership
of Acting General Counsel Charlotte Dye, the OGC has begun to
effectively address this backlog.
If I am confirmed as general counsel, I will primarily
devote my attention to addressing and meeting those challenges.
I am confident that my prior service as the OGC's Assistant
General Counsel for Operations and Legal Policy, and my
subsequent tenure as FLRA Chairman DuBester's chief counsel,
have equipped me with the operational knowledge, working
relationships, and technical skills that will allow me to begin
this process on day one of my service as general counsel.
This will include meeting immediately with the OGC's career
leadership to assess the current status of pending cases,
including a candid evaluation of the procedures that have been
employed to date to address the backlog. It will also include a
thorough review of procedures that have worked well in
addressing past backlogs, with the goal of developing a
comprehensive case management plan under my direction. And
working with OGC's leadership, career staff, and employee
representatives, I will finalize and implement this plan as
soon as possible. While focusing on this challenge, I will also
work to ensure that the OGC's regional offices have the
personnel and resources needed to effectively address the
backlog while continuing to meet in a fair, consistent, and
professional manner the additional responsibilities of the
OGC's mission, including the timely processing of newly filed
cases.
I joined the ranks of the FLRA in 2013, after practicing
labor and employment law for 17 years with a private law firm.
In my new position with the FLRA, I was instantly impressed
with the professionalism of the OGC's employees and the
Authority's employees and their dedication to the core
principles articulated in our agency's governing statute. As I
have continued my service with the FLRA, I have developed a
deep respect and admiration for employees at all levels of the
Federal workforce and the vital importance of the services
their agencies provide to the American people. These insights
have informed the actions I have taken as an FLRA employee, and
they will continue to guide me as general counsel if I am
confirmed to this position.
I wish to express my appreciation to the Committee and
staff for making this hearing possible, and I look forward to
answering any questions.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld.
Now we will begin the question portion of the hearing.
There are three questions the Committee asks of every nominee,
and I will ask each of you to respond briefly with just ``yes''
or ``no.'' First, is there anything you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Mr.
DuBester.
Mr. DuBester. No.
Senator Sinema. Ms. Grundmann.
Ms. Grundmann. No.
Senator Sinema. Mr. Rumsfeld.
Mr. Rumsfeld. No.
Senator Sinema. Second, do you know of anything personal or
otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated? Mr. DuBester.
Mr. DuBester. No.
Senator Sinema. Ms. Grundmann.
Ms. Grundmann. No.
Senator Sinema. Mr. Rumsfeld.
Mr. Rumsfeld. No.
Senator Sinema. Last, do you agree without reservation to
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of Congress, if confirmed? Mr.
DuBester.
Mr. DuBester. I do.
Senator Sinema. Ms. Grundmann.
Ms. Grundmann. I do.
Senator Sinema. Mr. Rumsfeld.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. Now each Senator will receive 7
minutes for questions. I will start by recognizing myself with
questions.
I would like to start today with Mr. Rumsfeld. Currently,
the FLRA has a backlog of approximately 275 unfair labor
practice cases. The Office has also lost almost half of its
attorneys in the past few years. The challenge to address the
backlog with diminished staff will confront our nominees on day
one. What steps do you plan to take to resolve this challenge?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, this is going to be my first priority, if confirmed
as General Counsel. As I noted, I plan on meeting with OGC's
leadership to review the procedures that have been utilized
thus far to address the backlog and also the status of the
backlog itself. They have made some inroads in addressing the
backlog, and I think we can learn from the experience thus far
with respect to how the process, procedures have been working.
I also believe strongly in the value of looking at how past
backlogs were handled by prior general counsels. When I was
Assistant General Counsel, I did have the opportunity to review
procedures that were put into place by my predecessor, Julie
Clark, former general counsel, which included an assessment of
the current complaints that were pending and also a triaging
and scheduling of hearings for complaints based on a calendar
basis where, for instance, the complaints that were filed in a
particular region were calendared at the same time for
efficiency's sake.
I have full confidence in the OGC's attorneys and staff and
leadership, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, once I
undergo and complete this review, I will work with the OGC's
staff and employee representatives to implement this plan as
soon as possible.
I also have a keen focus on restoring the number of full
time employees that I think are necessary within the OGC to
address this backlog. That will not be as immediate of a
response as addressing the backlog of complaints, but to me it
is equally important.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld.
My next question is for Ms. Grundmann. What have you
learned from your position as the Executive Director of the
Congressional Office of Workplace Rights that you will bring to
the FLRA, and does the FLRA have a role in replicating any of
the lessons from the Executive Branch?
Ms. Grundmann. What have I learned? I have learned that
when given a timeframe of 6 months to implement an overhaul of
the Agency, you can do it and you can do it with the proper
resources and the proper personnel. We had an amazing team at
the time it was called--the Office of Compliance. We built it
pretty much from ground-up. What I have learned is to build
teams, to build coalitions, and to set timelines and
timeframes, and hold yourself to them. We can do that wherever
we go.
In terms of bringing the FLRA into the mix, this is the
kind of work that we do now. We do handle the labor complaints,
representational petitions, negotiability appeals of the
Legislative Branch, and it is a fair and efficient system. And
I hope to, if confirmed, replicate that at the FLRA.
Senator Sinema. Thank you.
Mr. DuBester, while at the FLRA, you issued more than 2,000
decisions. Previously, you chaired the National Mediation Board
(NMB) and worked at the National Labor Relations Board. With
more than 45 years of experience in labor-management law, you
are an expert in the field. Such success requires an ability to
work with others who may not share your political views. What
lessons have you learned about being able to work in a
bipartisan way to fairly adjudicate cases, and how will you
continue this work if confirmed to the FLRA again to ensure
that it remains an impartial body?
Mr. DuBester. I have found that the need to work with all
of your colleagues in a collegial and collaborative way is
crucial to effective performance, and I have done that actually
since I was a very young man, since you referred to my first
experience out of law school, Madam Chair, which was at the
National Labor Relations Board. I happened to work for a
Democrat, if you will, member. Yet, we worked very collegially
and collaboratively, staff to staff--and I was a young staff
attorney then--with the staffs representing Republican members.
And so I found even there at an early age, in terms of
enhancing the NLRB's mission performance, from the board side
on which I was working, that was absolutely crucial.
As a Presidential appointee--and I have had the privilege
of serving in leadership positions now, as you mentioned, at
two different independent agencies for over 20 years--I have
worked, of course, with many Republican colleagues. I have
always had very good personal and professional relationships
going back to the NMB. We dealt with many, among other things,
very serious, high-profile collective bargaining disputes in
the airline and railroad industries, disputes that had
potentially a major impact on our country's economy and on our
nation's--well, all of our citizens. I needed to work to be
effective with some cabinet-level agencies,
like Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Labor
(DOL) and, of course, the White House.
So, you cannot work effectively if you do not work with all
of your colleagues, whether they happen to be Democrats or
Republicans. In my current position at the FLRA, as I mentioned
in my questionnaire, I have now served with a total of four
Republicans. I have been in the minority for the last 3 or 4
years, but for the early 8 years, I was in the majority. I had
a very purposely constructive, collegial, collaborative
relationship with both of my Republican colleagues during that
time. We did not agree on everything, but quite frankly, we
agreed on most things and certainly on many things.
When they left, I think we were not only colleagues who
respected one another, but we were friendly and personally
friendly. One of those colleagues actually went on to become
Deputy Secretary of Labor in President Trump's recent
administration, and I got a call from him after President Biden
renominated me to be chair.
So going forward, I will continue to do what I have done.
We will work collaboratively with all the Presidential
appointees and their staffs to help them to do their jobs
better, to respect the fact that we may have differences of
opinion on certain policy matters and certainly on cases. But I
understand that it is very crucial to the operations and
performance of the FLRA in all respects, including with our
request for budget and appropriations approval which, of
course, is a very serious matter, as all of the members of this
Committee know and appreciate.
It is a very important matter to me, and I take pride, I
think, in the record that I have had in my 20 years of
leadership. Thank you.
Senator Sinema. Thank you.
My time is expired, and I would now like to turn the time
to our Ranking Member, Senator Lankford, for his questions for
the panel. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Senator Sinema, thank you.
To the three nominees, thank you for stepping up to be able
to do this. You all know the sacrifice that it takes to be able
to go through a nomination process and the challenges and the
unique difficulties.
I want to be able to do some general questions and some
specific questions as we walk through this. The first question
is we are trying to figure out how to be able to deal with the
backlog issues that are ongoing. Obviously, Mr. Rumsfeld, you
have already addressed some of these things with the backlog. I
would like to be able to deal with the other two nominees here
actually being on the board there on what will deal with the
backlog and the number of cases being able to move through and
just the speed of those cases.
There is a couple questions here. One is the number of
cases that you consider backlogged at this point and then the
speed of actually answering decisions to make sure they get a
fair decision quickly. Mr. DuBester, you want to go first on
that?
Mr. DuBester. I do. Again, it is a very important
consideration because I think as part of our public service
obligations in the labor-management community we have a
statutory responsibility to try to move cases as quickly as
possible. In the last year, since I became chair, on the one
hand we have moved a lot of decisions. We have moved about 120
cases. Half closed. I think we are on pace to exceed the total
number that issued last year, but I know that we have a lot of
cases in the pipeline.
In 2009, I will refer you back when I first came into the
FLRA, Ranking Member Lankford. We had a much larger backlog. It
was of even more serious degree. We put into effect what I call
a critical action plan. It was with time targets. Basically
what it did, as simply as possible, was it tried to harmonize
targeting cases that were really old, what I would say fairly
characterizes in a backlog but also not ignoring new filings.
That is always the issue. If you focus your undivided attention
on only cases that are old, then the new filings come in.
I think going forward we will take an assessment
immediately to see how many we have. I do not think our
backlog--and I do not mean to be casual about this because any
case that is old, to me, is a serious matter. But I do not
think our backlog is as serious as I have seen it before. Like
I said, our case closings even this year are matching what they
did in recent years. But I will take an assessment of where we
stand on that and try to come up with what I believe is a
reasonable critical action plan that avoids us developing a
bigger backlog. Very important matter.
Senator Lankford. Mr. DuBester, let me ask you a quick
question. What do you consider an old case? How many days old?
Because about just a little less than half the cases are taking
over a year to be able to resolve. So what would you consider
is a timely decision?
Mr. DuBester. My personal view is different than what I
would say our performance goals have been, but our performance
goals, we have had two targets. We have had targets for 210
days, and then we have had the year target, 365 days. I think
we can do better than that, certainly better than 365.
There are lots of reasons, as I am sure you appreciate from
your experience, Ranking Member Lankford, as to why cases get
held. Each member has a prerogative to handle a case and to
bring a certain idea into a case's decision, and I would not
even assume that this breaks down between what I would call
Republican and Democratic members, that sometimes members from
the same party have different views and they want to say
something. They want to address something. It is that back and
forth among offices that often adds to the delay. I think we
are all committed, notwithstanding matters that we raise, to
our responsibility to move cases as quickly as possible.
I think I had mentioned before one of the mechanisms that
we have employed that I think is very helpful is we have
regular weekly meetings of each member's Chief Counsel and
Deputy Chief Counsel. That has been a practice for quite a
while. At those meetings, they prioritize and target cases for
issuance. I think that is very helpful.
But, to me, I would say there is no good reason why a
decision should be more than 6 months old. Where we have a
number of cases that are older than that, even if they are
going to need the 365 days, I think that is regrettable, and I
would commit to doing much better.
I will give you another example, just as an example of
something I did as chair at another agency, along the same
line. At the National Mediation Board, we are probably the
largest designating agency of arbitrators to resolve disputes
involving airline and railroad industries. What I did was if
arbitrators had cases involving those industries and their
employees, if they did not issue their awards within 6 months,
I did not allow them to receive new cases because I thought it
was that important to the parties, the labor-management
communities.
This is a matter that I take very seriously, I think is
very important. I believe in the old law school maxim about
``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' I commit that I will do
everything I can to keep working hard on that and improving our
performance where it is not what perhaps it should be.
Senator Lankford. Yes, that would be very significant,
obviously, because there have been so many cases that have been
past the 365 days, not just in the last year where we
understand a lot of dynamics around Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19), but reaching back to 2018 and on. This seems to be
a pretty consistent issue for it to be able to take longer.
The FLRA has also been ranked as 24th of 29 in agencies as
far as the best places to work among the agencies. You had
mentioned in some of your previous comments on that that those
things go up and down, and that is true on that. What can be
done to make the FLRA a better place to be able to work, and do
you think leadership has a responsibility in that?
Mr. DuBester. I think leadership definitely has a response
on that. Again, that is something that is very central to my
concern and priority. As I often say--and I do not mean this to
suggest that it is easy. But I often say that it involves very
basic kinds of actions and behaviors.
First off, what I would say is employees, our staff, need
to know that the work they do is important and valued and so
that leadership, in other words, believes in the mission of the
Agency. That is No. 1.
No. 2, I believe it is very important for all staff--and
when I say ``all staff,'' I mean managers as well as non
managers. Managers and employees. They need to know that they
have input. They need to know that they have a voice on the
direction of the Agency. It does not mean that decisionmakers,
like people like myself in leadership positions, are going to
accept all their advice or all their suggestions, but they have
to know that their input is meaningful and real and that, if
possible, we will take their advice.
I say this in any workplace context. A lot of times
employers will say, well, the employee morale is not our
problem, and it definitely is management's problem. Whether it
is the private sector in their concerns about productivity or
whether it is about the public sector such as the Federal
sector, it is about performance. An employee workforce that is
motivated, whose morale is high, who is engaged in the work
they do, their performance is going to be great.
I know every Member of this Committee, in various ways,
cares deeply about the services of all Executive Branch
agencies and how they are provided to our citizens. I say again
an engaged, motivated workforce is one of the best recipes for
increasing the performance at any agency, and that includes the
FLRA.
We will work on that. We will show that we are concerned
about their professional development by offering training and
skills development kinds of opportunities, which we have done.
We will share information. Information sharing is also key. Try
to be as transparent as we can, in as timely a way as we can.
I was chair previously in 2013, which, as you might recall,
was the first year of sequestration. That was a very tough year
in the Federal Government because of the budgetary and fiscal
constraints that were imposed. I had regular meetings with the
entire agency, sharing with them what our options were, what we
were dealing with, the belt-tightening that we had to go
through. They did not like a lot of what we had to report and
say, but they appreciated that we were sharing the information
and perhaps they had the opportunity to comment on it.
So going forward, I will continue that----
Senator Lankford. Mr. DuBester, let me interrupt you real
quick because we are over time on this. I want to respect
everyone's time also on this.
Mr. DuBester. I apologize.
Senator Lankford. That is all right.
Chair Sinema, if there is an opportunity, I would like to
ask one more question at the very end, but I do want to defer
my time.
Senator Sinema. Sure. Absolutely. Thank you for that.
I would like to recognize Chairman Peters for his
questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Sinema. Thank you for
chairing this hearing here today.
Congratulations to each of the nominees for your nomination
and your willingness to serve our country. The FLRA must play a
leadership role in ensuring that agencies can achieve and
maintain stable and productive Labor-Management Relations to
truly honor the employees' right to organize and to
collectively bargain as is fully protected under Federal law.
Mr. DuBester, my first question for you is: What are some
of the ways the FLRA educates agencies and employees about
their rights and responsibilities, and are there other outreach
strategies that you plan to pursue, if confirmed?
Mr. DuBester. Again, another very important issue. You are
addressing what I call the external dimension whereas Ranking
Member Lankford previously was raising the internal dimension.
I think it starts with sharing information, Mr. Chairman. We
provide information as much as we can on our website. It has
guidance from each of our components. It has some of the
training sessions that we have given in various areas.
We have a tradition of offering training on many subjects
including basic statutory rights and responsibilities. During
the first 8 or 9 years of my tenure at the FLRA, we often did
training in conjunction with another agency, the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), where they would be
providing training in relationship building kinds of endeavors
and we would provide on basic statutory rights and
responsibilities. So training, to me, is very important.
We have provided over the years in a couple of other key
areas involving two of the four kinds of cases that we have the
responsibility to handle, and those are arbitration and
negotiability. We had initiatives in that arena early in my
tenure, and part of the initiative included, No. 1, putting
guides on our website again, Mr. Chairman. We still have those
guides on the website: the guide to dealing effectively with
arbitration in the Federal sector and the guide to
negotiability.
We have also given live, in-person training, of course, up
until about a year and a half year ago because unfortunately
the pandemic really has interfered with all of our lives in the
way that we live and work. But we have done a lot of training
[audio interruption].
Chairman Peters. He is gone.
Senator Sinema. Chairman Peters, it looks like we might
have lost Mr. DuBester for a moment. Why don't you proceed to
your next question, and when Mr. DuBester comes back we will
resume with him.
Chairman Peters. That is a good idea, Madam Chair.
Actually, the same question to Ms. Grundmann and Mr.
Rumsfeld. If you have some additional thoughts on how the FLRA
can use outreach and education to strengthen Labor-Management
Relations, I would certainly love to hear your thoughts. Ms.
Grundmann, do you want to be first?
Ms. Grundmann. Yes, sir. When I was at the MSPB, we did a
significant amount of outreach with our sister agencies, and
through that connection between all of our agencies, that
cross-training improved. I certainly would welcome an
opportunity to work not only with other agencies, if confirmed,
but also set up panels between all the agencies to talk about
the various ways that we can reach out.
One of the things I do want to point out is the FLRA is
partnering with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as we
speak to conduct a virtual town hall, if you will, at the end
of this month in terms of the Executive Order (EO). So that is
another means. With the virtual world that we live in, it
actually gives us, strangely enough, an opportunity to reach
more people on a broader basis. I think that continues on and
on.
I see Mr. DuBester is back. So thank you.
Senator Sinema. Mr. DuBester----
Chairman Peters. Let us----
Senator Sinema. Go ahead. Thanks. Chairman Peters, yes.
Chairman Peters. Yes, Madam Chair, why don't we have Mr.
Rumsfeld just in the remaining time give me an answer, please.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, thank you. I am a strong believer in the
training that the OGC has traditionally provided. I was
actually a participant in a lot of that training when I was
assistant general counsel, training to both unions and agencies
regarding unfair labor practice issues and representation case
issues.
As the chairman, Chairman DuBester, mentioned, OGC
publishes online all of the case handling manuals for ULP and
rep cases as well as guidances on particular issues that often
come up in the context of unfair labor practices. While I was
at the Office of General Counsel, I was involved in creating a
new substantial guidance on meetings, bypass issues, Weingarten
issues, formal discussions, which gave an overview of the
Authority's case law governing those matters. I also would
recognize that the OGC has just recently put up some very
creative online modules related to ULP issues in which the
parties can take at their convenience, and I fully intend on
continuing in developing that type of training as well.
Also, the cross-component training is important to me. I
actually participated in training activities with the FMCS
while I was at OGC. We did some training on, for instance,
issues arising in office moves and relocations.
I continue to believe that is essential, and I will
continue those efforts if confirmed as general counsel.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. I would like to thank the three
of you for your answers.
My time is running out. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Chairman.
I would like to recognize Senator Rosen for her questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Sinema, Ranking Member
Lankford.
Thank you to all the nominees, of course, for being here,
for your public service.
I want to talk a little bit about Federal workforce
recruitment and retention because in my nearly 3 years on this
Committee we have examined critical skills gaps in the Federal
workforce, particularly in the areas of information technology
(IT) and cybersecurity. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) has included strategic human capital management on its
High Risk List of 2001. Or since 2001, excuse me. There are a
number of factors affecting the Federal workforce environment
that, in turn, affect Federal agencies' abilities to recruit,
hire, and retain qualified workers in high demand fields like
IT and cyber jobs that require science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills.
All of the nominees here today have extensive experience in
Labor-Management Relations. I would like to ask each of you to
comment on how the Federal Labor Relations Authority can
positively influence the Federal work environment, make it
easier for agencies to find and to hire the right people,
especially in the high demand areas like tech, and if
confirmed, how you will build on what the FLRA is doing in this
space. Mr. Rumsfeld, maybe we can start with you.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, retention and recruitment is obviously a
big concern I have, if confirmed, for the reasons I discussed
in my opening statement. In my view, retention arises from
employee engagement. There are certain things that we cannot
control at Federal agencies, for instance, wages or benefits,
but I believe there are a lot of tools at our disposal for
creating enthusiasm for our mission by the people who work for
us.
I have always promoted an open-door policy as a manager. I
believe that it is important for employees to understand
primarily how their work contributes to the mission of the
agency, to feel a part of it and to feel that they belong and
that they are important. Then as a manager, I believe it is
important to provide the tools and resources that allow
employees to do their job and to give them the leeway and
discretion to accomplish those missions.
Senator Rosen. Perfect. Thank you.
Ms. Grundmann, how would you build on what the FLRA is
doing so we can retain and hire those tech professionals that
we so desperately need?
Ms. Grundmann. One of the major problems with retaining IT
folks is really you are competing with the private sector.
There is a resource issue. But I believe that an agency
attracts talent by being known for an engaging environment and
also for great productivity, and that is measured every year to
OPM's Employee Viewpoint Survey.
But an agency retains talented employees through
engagement, as Mr. Rumsfeld was discussing. To change the
relationship beyond a mere business transaction, where
employees do the work in exchange for pay and benefits, to a
heightened sense of commitment. And that comes when there is
that connection to the work, to the purpose of the agency, and
that comes through communication, transparency, accountability,
and giving an employee a voice at the table, which is what the
FLRA is about, through whether collective bargaining or outside
of collective bargaining.
Now I understand that employees cannot decide what work
needs to be done, but certainly they should have a voice in how
the work is accomplished, and that is impact and implementation
bargaining. At the same time, agencies----
Senator Rosen. I was going to say I just have a few minutes
left. I wanted Mr. DuBester to try to see how we are going to
add onto this, be sure that we keep and retain these high-in-
demand professions.
Mr. DuBester. Thank you, Senator Rosen. As I indicated in
my prior answer--so I am really just going to quickly echo what
Kurt and Susan have said. I spoke at length about very basic
actions and behaviors which go to everyone at the agency
knowing that their work is valued, that their mission is
important, that they have a voice. Those things sound very
basic, but the word gets out.
I will say this; it seems to me that you were really
asking, of course, that we are a Labor-Management Relations
agency, but it seemed like you were more interested--and, of
course, this is Cybersecurity Awareness Month.
Senator Rosen. Yes, it is.
Mr. DuBester. It is a particularly good time for the
question. But you were more interested in tech. Of course,
being a small agency, we do not have dedicated budgets and
resources for tech, but it is a very high priority, and we have
a tech department. I might add that we are also blessed with
the fact, coincidentally right now, that our Executive
Director, which is our No. 1, if you will, non Presidential
person at the agency, his background happens to be and his
expertise happens to be in tech. He was formerly the director
of our tech. So this is always a high priority.
But I will tell you that in terms of attracting and
retaining, in my experience now with 12 years at the FLRA, the
nonmission-related employees, such as tech, people that are not
a Labor-Management Relations professional, they learn about the
environment and the atmosphere being created within an agency,
and that is created by leadership. Again, as Kurt and Susan
both said, if you get the reputation for being an agency that
cares about its employees, that cares about their professional
development, that lets them do their jobs well, that word gets
out. We have drawn a lot of people over the years in nonlabor-
management relations jobs, including tech. I am very pleased
with the tech department we have.
I recommend to all my counterparts throughout the Executive
Branch: Lead by example and you will do better with your
attraction and retention of good people.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I see my time is up. I will
submit the rest of my questions for the record about addressing
the case backlog and getting people to work after the pandemic,
Madam Chair.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
I now recognize Senator Hawley for his questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all of the witnesses for being here.
Mr. DuBester, let me just start with you if I could. The
FLRA is meant to be an independent, nonpartisan agency. I
understand that there are three members but only one of them is
a Republican. Today, we are considering your nomination to be
appointed to another term is chair as well as the nominations
of another member and a general counsel, but all of whom are
appointed by or were appointed by Democrats. All of you have a
long history of donating exclusively to Democratic elected
officials.
So here is my concern. That creates a situation where two
thirds of the members are Democrats and three out of four of
the most senior positions are occupied, or will be occupied, by
Democratic appointees. Labor relations, of course, can be a
very politicized topic, and for that we do not have to look any
further than the Department of Labor's recent emergency
guidance dictating vaccine mandates to all major employers,
something that for the record I think they have zero legal
authority to do, and I have written them to that effect.
Here is my question for you: Can I just ask you to address
this. Can you speak to the importance of the FLRA being a
nonpartisan and independent entity, and can you explain how you
would work to overcome any perception that the Agency is
captured, has been captured or would be, by one political
party?
Mr. DuBester. I think your question is an important
question, Senator Hawley. Just for clarity because I know you
know this, but under the statute--and here is the statute. The
way the statute works, of course--and this was done at least in
part--I am not saying that you accept its adequate
effectiveness. But with any President, whether Republican or
Democrat, they have to have at least one member not of their
party, and that is the way it works.
Right now in fact, we happen to have two Republicans, not
Democrats. The majority is still in the Republican hands. All
three of us, myself included, were most recently nominated or
renominated by President Trump. I just say that to clarify
where we are today.
But it is true that generally speaking and during my time,
during President Obama's tenure, there were two Democrats and a
general counsel appointed by him, one Republican, though.
During President Trump's administration, of course, there were
two Republican members and the general counsel position,
unfortunately, was vacant, but that was President Trump's
prerogative. I was the Democratic member.
Now, depending on what this Committee decides to do and
what the Senate decides to do, if you confirm the three of us,
then as you suggest there will be two Democratic members again,
but there will be a Republican member.
What I would say--and I said this in a prior answer. I do
not know whether you have heard it or not. But I have had the
privilege of serving at 2 different independent agencies over
20 years, and I have had several Republican colleagues. I have
always had a collegial, collaborative relationship with them.
Most of the time, we have agreed on things, both cases and
policy. I think it is very important, regardless, to work
collegially and collaboratively with all of the Presidential
leadership.
It is kind of similar to what I said about managers and
employees and how you make a high performance agency. I think
it is important for Presidentials as well. We happen to be in
leadership positions, but I happen to think it is important for
Presidentials to understand that they too have a voice,
regardless.
I will give you one example. I mentioned before how we
meet. Our staffs meet regularly, weekly, to discuss cases and
identify priorities. That is certainly going to continue
whether we have a Democratically controlled or now we have a
Republican majority.
The other thing we do--I mentioned an action. I restored
the operation of our alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
program. I think that is a matter that is very important. I
think it is a matter that should have nonpartisan, bipartisan
support, and that is one of the best, to me, protections
against politicized, if you will, kinds of decisions that you
are concerned about. I share your concern because it is about
avoiding and preventing disputes and giving parties input.
But the point I want to make here is I restored a program
that my two Republican colleagues, for the first time in 30
years, had decided to do away with. But before I did that, I
did not act unilaterally. I entered into a compromise protocol
with my two colleagues that gave them the voice and input to
approve which cases were referred for our, if you will, ADR
program and its consideration. It is not what I would have
done, but I agreed to it out of the same spirit that I hope and
think you are suggesting, which is the spirit of collegiality
and collaboration and not having, if you will, on a lot of
operational matters the political one-sided kind of
decisionmaking basis.
Senator Hawley. Yes, very good. Thank you. I appreciate
that answer. Thank you for that.
Let me just follow up on that, to ask you about when you
think it is appropriate for the FLRA to issue split decisions,
in other words, to be governed by a split decision. What is the
standard? Give me some window into your thinking about what the
standard would be to take and move forward with a 2-1 decision.
Mr. DuBester. I do not think there, it is interesting that
you ask this because I previously came from the National
Mediation Board, as you may know. The reason why I mention that
is we issued some decisions there as well. But because of the
mediatory function of the Agency, we had a longstanding
tradition there of not issuing dissents, and that really was a
challenge with three members. It does not matter whether they
are Democrats or Republicans, I will say to you. Three members,
period. Human beings.
At the FLRA, as you know and understand, of course, we are
a quasi-judicial body with adjudicative functions, and to that
extent we are like a court. I think each member, while they are
serving, has a right to vote on a case. A 2-1 decision is the
decision. I think the standard is whatever the individual
members, who are serving in a quasi-judicial capacity, say it
should be. Those cases have issued.
In my first 8 years, I would say we probably agreed among
all three members somewhere well in excess of 75 percent of the
time, but there were dissents there. In recent years, my
colleagues I think have taken a different direction, which is
their prerogative, and I dissented probably a little bit more.
But the 2-1 majority, the majority has a right to take the
positions and make the decisions that they want to make, and
that becomes the law.
I do not have a better answer than that, but I think that
that is part of the [audio interruption]----
Senator Hawley. Yes.
Mr. DuBester [continuing]. That I think has most served our
community well.
Senator Hawley. Very good. My time is expired. I just want
to say in closing I love it that you carry around the organic
statute, the FLRA organic statute. Yes, that is great. Maybe I
will have a question for the record for you about that.
Madam Chair, thank you so much.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
I would like to return to Senator Lankford for a final
question.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. We have run out of time
because we actually have a vote going on right now. I want this
to be brief though it is a significant question, and it is this
issue of vaccine mandates.
Obviously, the President has laid down an Executive Order.
I have had quite a few folks that are in the Federal workforce
that have contacted me, saying, hey, they are making petitions
to their union. This is a change in what they perceive to be
their collective bargaining agreement, that there is a new
feature there that they were not aware of before that could
actually remove them from their workplace.
This is something that may very well come at you in the
days ahead. I am trying to figure out how you will balance this
out, what are the key features that you are going to look for,
as we have Federal workers that will leave the workplace in the
days ahead or will petition to say, I was not heard on my
religious liberty issues or I was not heard on medical issues,
whatever that may be, disputes that may happen on
inconsistencies from one workplace to the other, as this is
coming down.
So my question is: How do you perceive that you are going
to try to handle this? What are the key things that you are
going to look for? Ms. Grundmann, I would like to start with
you.
Ms. Grundmann. Yes, thank you. I believe the Agency should
engage its designated representative at the outset if possible.
It is not always possible, but certainly that conversation
needs to occur even if it is post hoc. It is appropriate, I
think, that the parties have this discussion and potentially
bargain over impact and implementation of any policy that came
out as a result of the pandemic.
I cannot say how I would vote in terms of a case that would
come before us. Clearly, the fact and the precedent would drive
any decision.
I can tell you how I have implemented the policy in my
office, and that is that we require vaccination certification
of all employees and contractors, but we allow for exceptions
based on disability and religion.
Let me tell you why we did this because it is unique to our
office. As you know, we administer the Congressional
Accountability Act. The CAA incorporates among its 13 laws,
actually 14 laws now, Title VII, which prohibits unlawful
discrimination of certain protected classes. One of those
classes is religion. The reason why we did this is we wanted to
lead by example. We are the ones who are administering the
statute, and we believe that we should recognize sincerely held
religious beliefs in terms of the fact of whether to vaccinate
or not.
In addition to that, our office administers the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the legislative community, and
we believe that kind of policy is reflected in the policy that
we have implemented.
Senator Lankford. OK. That is helpful to be able to get
context on.
It is interesting. In a 24-hour time period, I talked to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). They said, we are
going to honor religious, and we are not going to try to
evaluate religious issues, how religious you are. Twenty-four
hours later, I spoke with the Office of Personnel Management.
They had an eight-item checklist to be able to determine if you
are sincere enough in your beliefs and what issues may be to
try to have that determination.
This will be an issue that undoubtedly is coming because,
agency to agency, they are going to differentiate on what it
looks like to have a sincerely held belief or what it is--what
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is
requiring versus what an individual physician is actually
asking them. This is definitely coming because we are hearing
quite a few in my office.
Mr. DuBester, how will you handle this?
Mr. DuBester. Yes, I will share with you--in one sense, we
have been working on this for a while now, it seems, Ranking
Member Lankford. One thing I will share with you, within the
FLRA, even before the President issued his Executive Order
mandating the vaccine, about 85 percent of our employees had
already attested to having taken the vaccination.
But we have had our own internal--of course, we--I know
your reference to both OMB and OPM. We collaborate and look to
them for some guidance, too. So of course, we need to have
guidance. As you know, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force
has put a lot of questions and answers and guidance on their
website.
But we have had an internal pandemic task force for some
time now. We have had a lot of discussion including everyone,
managers and employees. In our human resources (HR) office and
particularly our directors are trained and skilled and
knowledgeable in the ways to handle requests for accommodations
or exceptions along either the medical exception line or the
religious line. So we are going----
Senator Lankford. Mr. DuBester, if I could interrupt for a
moment on that, this is so new. The guidances I have read
through, the guidance that has been placed out there, there
will be wide variations agency to agency, and even within
departments within agencies, on how they are going to interpret
the medical exceptions and the religious accommodations based
on what has been placed out.
Some are already saying ``the CDC has said,'' and that
trumps a local doctor, that their own family physician may say
for cancer treatments or whatever it may be we want you to be
able to pause at this moment. I have had some Federal employees
that have contacted me and said, our department or our agency
is not hearing us out.
The real question is trying to be able to balance out who
is the decisionmaker in the process when there is a conflict.
Is the CDC the decisionmaker or their local physician? Who
interprets sincerely held religious beliefs? Is that their
immediate supervisor, or is that someone else in the agency, or
is it the individual?
Mr. DuBester. Yes. Again, what I would say, Senator and
this is not to be evasive. But again, as the Safer Federal
Workforce Task Force has already acknowledged, these kinds of
questions are going to be very fact-specific and context-
dependent.
If we get matters, as Susan said, that come to us as cases,
It is like a case that has not happened. We are going to
approach it with an open mind and not make any prejudgments.
You know, giving full, as full and fair consideration as we can
to the situation that comes before us. I do not have any
preconceived notions and would not want to render any advice on
that subject.
It is fair to say that we consult with, and get direction
from, OMB and OPM. We will continue to do that. But even with
that said, I mean, we are not going to create something out of
whole cloth. But we are going to approach any matter that comes
to us in this area like we do with any other case, with an open
mind, give it full and fair treatment, and recognize perhaps
that all these situations are not going to be alike. They are
going to be--I think at least in this respect it makes sense to
me, as the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force has said, that
they are going to be very fact specific and context-dependent
is the way they put it. And so we are going to approach them
that way and try to give everybody a fair hearing.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
I appreciate that, Chair Sinema, and I appreciate the final
question wrap-up. This will be a bigger issue because this is
an alteration of the collective bargaining agreement that
individual members of the union were not a part of and that
dialog that has now been imposed on them is a standard of
employment that is new. There will be some additional
challenges here.
I am grateful I have been vaccinated. I am very grateful
for the vaccine. The vast majority of Federal workers have been
vaccinated, but there are some with questions that will have
legitimate issues that will be very difficult to be able to
process through.
I appreciate the additional time on this. Thanks, Chair
Sinema.
Senator Sinema. Absolutely. With that, we have reached the
end of today's hearing. I appreciate the nominees for their
time and testimony, and I thank my colleagues for their
participation.
All three nominees have made financial disclosures\1\ and
provided responses to biographical and prehearing questions
submitted by this Committee.\2\ Without objection, this
information will be made part of the hearing record with the
exception of the financial data,\3\ which is on file and
available for public inspection in the Committee offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information of Mr. DuBester appears in the Appendix on page
25.
\2\ The information of Ms. Grundmann appears in the Appendix on
page 68.
\3\ The information of Mr. Rumsfeld appears in the Appendix on page
107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow,
October 21, for the submission of statements and questions for
the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]