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):||4 December 2012|
|PDF File Size:||7.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Smith has developed a streamlined process for completing shift turn over within his shop -He created several post deployment financial reimbursements worksheets -Nuclear certified equipment monitor guaranteed Zero Defects in wing weapons safety inspection -He always ready to step up and help other shops get the job done -Constantly a go to technician for hydraulic system information across the maintenance group -Mr.
His input to Fallaw’s appraisal for that year was not explored at the hearing. Nor does an antiunion explanation cry out for acceptance in these circumstances. Rather than an overall performance rating, the Enlisted Performance Report contains a “Promotion Recommendation.
Fallaw answered that it did not. Whatever the reason for these actions, the circumstances do not permit anything more than a suspicion that antiunion considerations were a contributing factor. In her appraisal for the April March period, Fallaw gave Richardson exactly the same ratings as in the previous year with respect to each of the critical and noncritical performance elements.
Richardson’s “Work Productivity” suffered to some extent, according to Fallaw, from her lack of a sense of urgency with respect to some deadlines. Richardson acts as a primary member on the Union’s Memorandum of Agreement negotiating team and participates in other negotiations around the Charleston Air Force Base. Richardson and Fallaw met in Dorm to discuss this appraisal. At some point a regulatory change required that the person in Fallaw’s position serve as the rating official although she did not work as closely with Richardson as the immediate working-level supervisors did Tr.
The Authority at not to substitute its judgment for that of the fa.
The General Counsel has undertaken the difficult task of showing that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of her protected activities.
On Vorm 26,Fallaw gave Richardson her annual appraisal for the year ending March 31, This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here. Click here for more information.
You are here Home U. Upon consideration of the Judge’s decision, the GC’s exceptions, and the entire record, we adopt the Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommended Order.
Fallaw sought more specific information from both Longman and Childers regarding their recommended appraisals, but received none. 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 corm that filing, and where he testified that the employee’s performance was “great” and had remained the same during qf later appraisal period.
On the front side of the sheet are listed nine “Appraisal Factors.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
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. Smith is a true asset to the unit, providing top notch knowledge, talent, and expertise!
I neither credit nor discredit, as such, witnesses’ opinion testimony regarding the motivation behind certain actions. Fallaw responded that it did not. Such impressions could also account for Fallaw’s unwillingness to fogm v56 p ] give Richardson anything but conclusory explanations for some of the ratings at their appraisal interviews. The score of “7” for “Adaptability to Work” was no higher because of some reports to Fallaw of occasions when Richardson had failed to wear the proper clothing or safety equipment in certain areas where they were required.
This report covered the period of January 1, to September 30, Richardson asked Fallaw if the last sentence had anything to do with her union activity.
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. To contribute, copy and paste into the form below or send to editor airforcewriter. For example, an overall rating of Excellent may be achieved if the employee has “Exceeded” in more than half of the critical elements and has at least “Met” the requirements of all the performance elements.
There were no material conflicts in testimony. 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.
Richardson performs her Union duties on official time approved by her immediate work supervisor. Such conduct, as alleged in the complaint, violated sections a 12 and 4 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute the Statute.
Fallaw answered that Richardson “would go outside of my chain of command and forj use my chain of command,” but gave Richardson no examples of that conduct Tr. At 860z 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.
These findings are based on the entire record. It contains a set of ratings and comments by Msgt. Fallaw had been in a supervisory position with respect to Richardson’s civilian position for only the last six months of the appraisal year. Thanks for your contributions. Nor does it pass on the fairness of the ratings.
As the General Vorm notes, Richardson received, with Fallaw’s concurrence, higher ratings for her performance on the military side of her job than those Fallaw gave her on the civilian side in overlapping periods. Those ratings might have been based aaf on Fallaw’s opinion as her new supervisor of Richardson’s performance, or have been colored, consciously or unconsciously, by personal animosity towards Richardson, or by some degree of insecurity with respect to Richardson.
The reason is close at hand. Richardson provided Fallaw with a copy of her appointment to the negotiating team.
As shop steward for Fabrication Flight, Richardson has the authority to file grievances and to represent employees in those grievances. This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case.