only through competitive examinations. I do not, however, believe that is the best solution of the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. The positions could now be filled from the civilservice eligible registers without any law being enacted by Congress. Mr. MOYER. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. REES. But you do not do that.

The CHAIRMAN. As I recall, the President has instructed the Home Owners' Loan Corporation to make new appointments, insofar as practicable, from the civil-service lists. Is not that true, Mr. Moyer? Mr. MOYER. Yes.

Mr. REES. That is something very recent.

The CHAIRMAN. The order was issued a year or so ago.

Mr. MOYER. For considerable time after the Agricultural Adjustment Administration was established positions under $2,600 a year were filled from the Commission's registers.

The CHAIRMAN. The ones so appointed do not get a civil-service status, but now the Home Owners' Loan Corporation uses civil service eligible registers in making new appointments. They are not making many new appointments, though.

Mr. REES. There has been considerable discussion here about the expense of conducting competitive examinations. Some have before the committee said they think it would be better to fill these positions with persons who have taken competitive examinations. I am trying to learn whether or not it is practicable or feasible to use those who have already taken competitive examinations and are on the eligible lists and who are eligible for appointment to vacancies in the agencies that are under the competitive civil service. Why not use those eligibles to fill the positions instead of bringing temporary employees under civil service? These temporary employees have had the same opportunity as anybody else to qualify. Maybe my theory is wrong and will not work.

I understand that the objection is that the employees within the temporary agencies are not classified. They are not designated as to positions and they do various kinds of work, regardless of the titles under which they are employed. For instance, a stenographer may be doing the work of a file clerk.

Mr. MOYER. The incumbents should be given an opportunity to qualify through open competitive examination or noncompetitive examination for retention in the positions in which they are serving. There would be a great deal of work and expense involved in giving open competitive examinations. There would be a great deal of expense involved even if the persons were considered in competition only with eligibles on existing registers, because the Commission does not have registers for many of the positions in these new agencies. The noncompetitive procedure is better, I think, because these agencies are going organizations and the noncompetitive examination method would not disrupt their work to a considerable extent, because those who are rendering efficient service could qualify through noncompetitive examinations and acquire a classified status.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Did you say there are not many eligible registers now?

Mr. MOYER. There are more eligibles on registers than there have been for some time. Our stenographer-typist register is not large at the present time. We announced an examination last year for that position.

Mr. BECKWORTH. I understand that some of your people believed when these temporary organizations were created that they should be put under civil service. I do not see how you could have conducted an examination 4 or 5 years ago and cannot do it now. If those organizations had been placed under the civil service at the time they were created, you would have had to hold competitive examinations to fill the positions.

Mr. MOYER. To hold the required open competitive examinations would require much time and money.

Mr. BECKWORTH. When the Home Owners' Loan Corporation was created you would have caused the employees to be selected from the Civil Service Commission registers if you had had your own way; is not that right?

Mr. MOYER. That is right.

Mr. BECKWORTH. And in order to fill those positions you would have had to hold civil-service examinations.

Mr. MOYER. We could have used existing registers to fill some of those positions.

Mr. BECKWORTH. But were your registers not small proportionately, when we consider the number of employees hired?

The CHAIRMAN. I think you, Mr. Beckworth, misunderstand Mr. Moyer. He has said there were many positions in these agencies for which the Commission had and has no eligible list. The types of positions are different in the emergency organizations than they are in the regular organizations. It is true that the Commission has eligible lists for stenographers, file clerks, typists, and clerks.

Mr. BECKWORTH. That same condition would have existed when the agencies were created.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but many of the positions could have been filled from the regular registers. In this case we have 300,000 positions and 200,000 of them probably would be covered.

They were created over many years. The Commission's work would have been spread out in one case, but in this case the work would be lumped if competitive examinations were held. The Commission could not have done that work then, without additional appropriations.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How many of these agencies, if it is known, will the President immediately bring within the civil service?

The CHAIRMAN. Nobody knows.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How do we know that he will not bring them in so slowly that competitive examinations could be given? That may be just what the President plans to do.

Mr. MOYER. If the President should put in only one agency and the incumbents should be required to qualify by competitive examinations, the Commission would have to open that examination to the entire country.

Mr. HARTER. You are in your testimony, as I understand it, seeking to protect the people rather than your merit system.

Mr. MOYER. I believe in the merit system, its protection and extension. I believe it can be extended. It has been extended in the past by giving consideration to incumbents, and I do not think there is any other feasible way to extend it.

Mr. HARTER. If a competitive examination is held to fill these jobs, those who hold them should in order to protect themselves enter the examinations.

Mr. MOYER. Those in the new agencies should, of course, take the examinations as soon as they are announced.

Mr. HARTER. In protecting the merit system, do you not think they should be required to take those examinations?

Mr. MOYER. I think every person occupying an excepted position should be required to pass an appropriate examination when he is permitted to acquire a classified status.

Mr. HARTER. Laziness in failing to take an examination should not be a quality of the merit system, should it?

Mr. MOYER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. The suggestion you make would destroy Mr. Beckworth's suggestion. You might bring them in gradually and spread the burden over a period of time, but under the suggestion you have made they would all be forced to take an examination at one time and the Commission would be faced by a cost in excess of $5,000,000 in holding a large number of examinations.

Mr. HARTER. What I had in mind is that this year we might give attention to those in the stenographic class, by building up a register for them; and, maybe, next year we could deal with telephone operators.

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot do that. If you bring all the positions in the Home Owners' Loan Corporation under civil service, you have to bring them all in at the same time.

Mr. HARTER. If the President may keep the present occupants in office for a year or two, we would have to consider that.

The CHAIRMAN. You are foreclosing the opportunity for those who have the positions. You are making it impossible for them to attain a classified status.

Mr. HARTER. I am trying to do the opposite by suggesting that they take an examination wherever they may be.

The CHAIRMAN. When an agency is brought under the civil service all the jobs in it have to come in at the same time. That means it would be necessary to hold examinations for all those types of positions, if you have open competitive examinations. You have to throw those examinations open to all the people of the United States. Mr. KUNKEL. Why bring all the positions in an agency under civil service at the same time? Is that a civil service regulation, or is it law?

The CHAIRMAN. It is the practice, when an agency is placed under the civil service, to bring all of it under at the same time.

Mr. KUNKEL. Why not change that?

The CHAIRMAN. It would probably make a very difficult administrative procedure to have some positions in an agency under civil service and some not. They handle positions under the civil service. differently than positions are handled under patronage. I do not think that would be practical.

Mr. KUNKEL. There is indication that it might save administrative trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. The House is in session. Do the members of the committee want to continue and finish with the witnesses from the Commission or shall we meet again later?

Mr. HARTER. I want to go to the House now.

Mr. MOSER. Before we adjourn, I should like to ask Mr. Moyer another question. I am not sure that I understood you right, Mr.

Moyer. You said, as I understood, that if a veteran passed an examination with a grade of 60 percent he would go to the top of the list.

Mr. MOYER. A disabled veteran who makes a grade of 60 percent is given 10 additional points and his name goes to the top of the list. Mr. MOSER. Does he not have to pass with a grade of at least 70 percent, the same as others?

Mr. MOYER. No. He has to make an earned rating of 60 and 10 points are added.

The CHAIRMAN. We had a suggestion in connection with veterans' eligibility in the last Congress that the veterans be required to make a passing grade before getting the preferential points. I think they should be required to make a passing grade before they are given those points.

Mr. MOSER. A disabled veteran who makes a grade of only 60 percent is given 10 points to make him 70 percent and he goes to the top of the eligible list; is that right?

Mr. MOYER. Yes.

Mr. HARTER. He would stand ahead of one who may have made 100 percent?

Mr. MOYER. Yes.

Mr. MOSER. The one who is not disabled but who is also a veteran would not have the status of a disabled veteran. He would have to accept only 5 points preference.

Mr. MOYER. Yes. Such a veteran is given 5 additional points and his name is placed on the list in accordance with his rating.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that a veteran should be given preference points, but I think he should take his proper place on the eligible list.

Mr. FRIES. Is there not danger in that sort of practice? For example, if we have a mechanic, like a fireman in some Federal building like a post office, and he was rated at 60 percent in the examination and given 10 percent preference, or 10 additional points, and then placed at the top of the eligible list, would there not be a danger of injuring the efficiency of civil-service employees?

Mr. MOYER. Certain types of examinations, such as those for the skilled trades, provide that the applicant must meet minimum experience requirements.

Mr. FRIES. The grade of 60 percent would qualify the disabled veteran to fill the position he seeks, would it not?

Mr. MOYER. Yes; except that for certain types of positions, including the skilled trades, a disabled veteran must meet the minimum experience before he can be considered eligible.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further this morning, the committee will adjourn, to meet next Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 11:40 o'clock a. m., Friday, March 24, 1939, the committee adjourned, to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Wednesday, March 29, 1939.)

146131-39-4

(Mr. Moyer subsequently submitted the following:)

Hon. ROBERT RAMSPECK,

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D. C., March 25, 1939.

Chairman, Committee on Civil Service,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your request at the hearing yesterday, I would advise you as follows concerning the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission in matters of employee grievances:

Employee grievances may relate to (a) matters on which the Commission by law or rule is authorized to render a final decision, or (b) matters on the merits of which the Commission is not authorized to make a decision.

In the first category are: Ratings in civil-service examinations; eligibility for transfer, promotion, or reinstatement; allocations of positions to salary grades in the departmental service only; eligibility for retirement on annuity; and similar questions on which the Commission is authorized by law or rule to make enforcable decisions. In complaints dealing with such matters, the Commission through its Board of Appeals and Review, and otherwise, affords the employee full opportunity to present his case for reconsideration; and the decision of the Commission on his appeal is final and binding upon all administrative officers.

In the second category are: Disciplinary actions; removals; reductions; efficiency ratings; and the like, where by law the power to make the decision on the merits of the issue involved is vested in the head of department and not the Civil Service Commission. In such cases, the Commission's role is limited to seeing that certain procedures are followed, but it is not authorized to reverse the decisions of the head of department on their merits.

In cases of dismissal, the Commission is authorized to investigate when it is alleged, with offer of proof, that the procedure required by the civil-service rules has not been followed, or that the dismissal was made for political or religious reasons, or that like penalties were not meted out by the department for like offenses. Furthermore, under the new civil-service rules effective February 1, 1939, the Commission may "receive or hear the statement of any employee removed on charges, and may, in its discretion certify the employee to any other department or establishment for reinstatement to a vacancy in any position for which the employee is qualified, and in the event of such reinstatement the employee shall retain his former service and tenure in the service for all purposes.' In summary, it may be said that in complaints against action taken by the Civil Service Commission, the employees are now afforded effective machinery for the presentation of grievances, but the same situation does not always exist with respect to those grievances that are based upon matters falling under the authority of the heads of departments. Many departments, however, have in recent years developed effective machinery for this purpose, and through the efforts of the departments, the Commission, and the Council of Personnel Administration, jointly, it is confidently expected that all phases of employee relations, including grieveance problems, will be greatly improved throughout the service. Very sincerely yours,

L. A. MOYER, Executive Director and Chief Examiner.