To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize the Merit Systems Protection Board to conduct an alternative dispute resolution pilot program to assist Federal Government agencies in resolving serious workplace disputes, and to establish an administrative judge pay schedule for administrative judges employed by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil Service.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 24, 1999
Amends Federal civil service law to authorize the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to establish a three-year program to provide Federal employees and agencies with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes to apply to workplace disputes and disagreements involving removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, and other adverse actions under Federal civil service law. Directs the MSPB to test and evaluate a variety of ADR techniques. Authorizes the MSPB to implement its early intervention ADR, allowing any agency or employee to request such early intervention, and authorizing the MSPB Chairman to designate up to three agencies with a substantial number of MSPB appeals for participation in a mandatory early intervention ADR program. Allows any employee or agency to request ADR once an appeal or petition for review of a case is filed with the MSPB. Outlines MSPB procedures for such cases. Direct the MSPB's Office of Policy and Evaluation to establish criteria for evaluating the ADR program and to prepare a report as to whether mandatory ADR is desirable, effective, and appropriate for cases decided by Federal administrative agencies. Authorizes appropriations for the ADR program. Establishes the MSPB Administrative Judge Pay Schedule, with pay levels comparable to that of immigration judges and administrative law judges. Provides, with respect to such Schedule, for initial appointment and advancement, and transition provisions for current judges. Authorizes appropriations to carry out such Schedule.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 4, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2946 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2946 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2946 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2946 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.