Fill Af Form a, download blank or editable online. Sign, fax and printable from PC, iPad, tablet or mobile with PDFfiller ✓ Instantly ✓ No software. Try Now!. CIVILIAN RATING OF RECORD. (Please read Privacy Act Statement on reverse before completing this form.) EMPLOYEE (Last Name, First, Middle Initial). SSN. Examples of Air Force Form A, CIVILIAN RATING OF RECORD, bullets.
|Published (Last):||24 September 2006|
|PDF File Size:||2.59 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
She also perceived that Richardson underperformed with respect to facilitating the continuity of work on each of her projects by those replacing her on the next work shift.
Civilian Appraisals This page started at readers’ request. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of antiunion animus on the part of the appraising supervisor. However, there were no exceptions to the findings quoted above, and I find it appropriate to take official notice of them for purposes of presenting a more complete picture of the background to the instant case.
Motivation here is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision. This resulted from in an overall rating of “Fully Successful. The unfair labor practice complaint alleges that employee Sharon Richardson’s supervisor, Georgia Fallaw, lowered the numerical ratings on seven out of nine Manner of Performance Appraisal Factors from the ratings Fallaw had given her the previous year on Richardson’s performance for the period of April 1, to March 31, because Richardson engaged in these activities.
As shop steward for Fabrication Flight, Richardson has the authority to file grievances and to represent employees in those grievances. Fallaw’s name is sometimes misspelled as “Mallaw” in the transcript of the hearing. I have no idea about the accuracy of the description, but I correct the transcript to read “Master Sergeant. Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following Order. The scores, and Fallaw’s explanations for them, need not withstand the same degree of scrutiny as would be the case if Respondent were required to mount an affirmative defense to the General Counsel’s prima facie 8600a.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
For example, there is good reason to believe that the relatively low scores for “Working Relationships” and “Communications” were influenced by Fallaw’s dislike of the manner in which Richardson interacted with her on work-related matters.
The fact that the appraisal followed Richardson’s protected activity is insignificant where, as here, the timing of the appraisal was not selected by the supervisor but was built into the system.
His input to Fallaw’s appraisal for that year was not explored at the hearing. This report covered the period of January 1, to September 30, Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
Nor does it pass on the fairness of the ratings. Fallaw responded that it did not. A dorm relatively low rating in “Communication” was, according to Fallaw, a result forrm Richardson’s frequent use of “improper routes or channels” to communicate.
Find a listing of all of the FLRA’s current job openings. Richardson also serves as the elected executive vice-president of vorm Charging Party the Unionits woman’s coordinator, and its shop steward for the “Fabrication Flight” plant.
In the two years preceding her first appraisal from Fallaw, Richardson had received overall performance ratings of Excellent and no numerical fogm on the corm factors below 8. This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case. However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
In preparing to rate Richardson for the period, Fallaw sought the input of the working-level supervisors who had observed Richardson most closely. After Fallaw assumed that position, other supervisors below her in the chain of command worked with Richardson on a day-to-day basis. What I am saying is that any contributory bias might have included one, the other, both, or neither, and that the evidence that an antiunion-based bias played any role does not preponderate. The General Counsel has undertaken the difficult task of showing that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings foorm lowered because of her protected activities.
Similarly, a prima facie case was established when the supervisor lowered the employee’s scores in every appraisal category from “9” to “5,” shortly after the employee had filed a grievance, where the supervisor expressed chagrin over that filing, and where he testified that the employee’s performance was “great” and had remained the same fform the later appraisal period.
Fallaw answered that Richardson “would go outside of my chain of command and not ad my chain of command,” but gave Richardson no examples of that conduct Tr. The subcategories in which the marks indicate some, although slight, room for improvement were “Timeliness of Work,” “Support for Organizational Activities,” “Initiative,” and “Communication Skills-Written.
On the reverse side of Form A, space is provided for ratings of “N” Did Not Meet”M” Metor “E” Exceeded for each of the critical and noncritical elements in the appraised employee’s “performance plan.
At some fomr a regulatory change required that the person in Fallaw’s position serve as the rating official although she did not work as closely gorm Richardson as the immediate working-level supervisors did Tr. Fallaw attributed Richardson’s score of no higher than “7” in “Problem Solving” to her observation, reflected previously in the “Met” rating for “Communications Discipline,” that Richardson often identified problems without offering suggested resolutions.
On November 13,Fallaw, 80a her capacity as Richardson’s second-level supervisor on the military side, signed off as the “indorser” on an “Enlisted Performance Report” on Richardson’s performance of her duties as a “TSGT” and aircraft stuctural maintenance journeyman G.
Nor does an antiunion formm cry out for acceptance in these circumstances. As the presiding judge in Case No. At least two of them, Sergeant Longman, who supervised the work area in which Richardson spent most of her time, and Sergeant Childers, provided Fallaw with recommended appraisals on AF Form A. Fallaw testified that Major Daley had no jurisdiction in that matter.
AT-CA as mentioned above. The final “appraisal factor” on which Richardson’s score dropped in was “Work Management. The ac that dropped were:. Fallaw had been in a supervisory position with respect fform Richardson’s civilian position for only the last six months of the appraisal year. In the General Counsel’s view, one must consider Fallaw’s appraisal of Richardson for the most recent previous period, April Marchas evidence of her unlawful motivation because it was then that Richardson’s overall rating dropped from “Excellent” to “Fully Successful” and dropped below “8,” for the first time in two years, on any individual appraisal factors.
Fallaw had no further response. The record does not reveal what input she received from Richardson’s working level supervisors for that year’s appraisal. Whatever we receive will be posted on this page until we get enough material to start organizing it.