The MSPB has compiled an overview of issues relating to disciplinary actions that covers topics ranging from the probationary period to legal standards used in appeals of those actions.
The short publication notes for example that the purpose of the probationary period is to provide an assessment opportunity in which the agency can judge the individual in the job before finalizing the appointment, but an earlier report found that supervisors are not using that period as intended. For example, in a survey, just above half of supervisors who said they would not select a probationary individual again said they expected to retain that person beyond the probationary period anyway.
Similarly, of newly appointed supervisors serving the separate supervisory probationary period, only 38 percent said that period was used to assess them, while 46 percent said it wasn’t and the rest weren’t sure.
Similarly, it said, those who take disciplinary actions against employees are often unaware of the level of proof needed to make it stand up in the case of an appeal. In many cases, MSPB said, the standard is the “preponderance of the evidence” meaning it is merely more likely than not that the assertions are true. However, 90 percent of supervisors polled thought the standard was “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which can dissuade them from taking actions they otherwise think appropriate, MSPB said.
It added that among proposing and deciding officials in disciplinary actions, there is a general consensus that the level of employee appeal rights is just about right, with only about a tenth strongly agreeing that employees have too many rights and slightly more actually strongly disagreeing.
