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.
|Country:||Bosnia & Herzegovina|
|Published (Last):||26 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||3.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.54 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The three “6” scores, the lowest that Fallaw gave to Richardson, included one, in “Working Relationships,” that equaled the score Fallaw had given her the previous year.
Richardson also answered affirmatively to a question about discussing the lowered “appraisal factor” scores with Fallaw Tr. Richardson also serves as the elected executive vice-president of the Charging Party the Unionits woman’s coordinator, and its shop steward for the “Fabrication Flight” plant. Nor does it pass on the fairness of the ratings.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
In these cases, the evidence included 680a of hostility toward protected activities, other strongly suggestive circumstances, or both. Exceptions and cross-exceptions to that Decision have been filed, and the case is dorm before the Authority. This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case.
On March 27,Msgt. I neither credit nor discredit, as such, witnesses’ opinion testimony regarding the motivation behind certain actions. She advises the supervisor what she needs the time for and for how long, and completes the standard official time form to account for the time. Fallaw sought more specific information from both Longman and Childers regarding their recommended appraisals, but received none.
Smith frm recognized as Wage grade employee of the year for March ARB -Always ready to step up to cover short notice and back to back TDY’s -He readily leads others and actively participates in launching, recovering and inspections of aircraft -He is a talented asset to the fprm, and a go to technician for less knowledgeable members -Mr.
However, where there was evidence neither of antiunion animus on the part of the supervisor nor of any relationship between the employee’s protected activity and his allegedly lowered performance appraisal, the Authority found fodm the evidence failed to establish that the employee was discriminated against because he engaged in protected activity.
In that pre- Letterkenny case, the Administrative Law Judge had recommended dismissing the complaint on the basis that, assuming that the General Counsel had established a prima facie case, the respondent had established what would now be considered a Letterkenny affirmative defense. Appraisal ratings are, even more so than many other management decisions fork employees, based on subjective judgments.
Richardson’s accounts of appraisal interviews with her supervisor, Georgia Fallaw, did not elicit any challenge or, fprm minor exceptions, contradictory testimony, and is credited in substance. The report has a different format than the civilian side AF Form A. Longman had also been Richardson’s working-level supervisor during the appraisal year.
Fallaw had no further response. As stated at the beginning this Decision, the qf of proving that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of that employee’s protected activities is a difficult one.
Thus, even if the scores are not fully supportable, and even if Fallaw’s unhelpfulness at the April interview in response to Richardson’s requests for elucidation is reprehensible, we are left with more than one alternative explanation.
In my view, the possibility that they were a contributing factor is, at best, no greater than that they were not. She asked Fallaw to explain a written comment on the critical element, “Work Habit Discipline,” in which Fallaw stated that Richardson could “exceed in this area” by “[p]rofessional, courteous, and gorm interaction with all coworkers, sections, and organizations” language that Fallaw quoted from Richardson’s performance plan.
Whatever we receive will be posted on this page until we get enough material to start organizing it. Fallaw cited reports she received from working-level supervisors that they were afraid to put Richardson on jobs that had deadlines. Richardson provided Fallaw with a copy of her appointment to the negotiating team.
This report covered the period of January 1, to September 30, 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 during the later 860 period.
Richardson asked Fallaw whether this related to her Union position. Robins55 FLRA at “[H]ad a prima facie showing of discrimination been established, a more thorough evaluation and analysis of Respondent’s affirmative defenses would have been necessary. Richardson questioned a rating of “Met” rather than “Exceeded” on a noncritical element called “Extra Duties.
Corm score of is in what [ v56 p ] is designated as the “Low Range,” is “Central Range,” and is “High Range. 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.
This resulted again in an overall rating of “Fully Successful. Such influence might reflect legitimate managerial considerations, personal bias, or both. Her occupational status within that job title is “aircraft structural repair technician. Between October and November 19, the date of the av in this case Fallaw was mentioned in several grievances filed by Richardson and in several unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union.
The transcript of the hearing identifies Harley as a “massive sergeant” Tr. Childers’ recommended appraisal form was not available at the time of the hearing and presumably had been destroyed.
Such conduct, as alleged in the complaint, violated sections a 12 and 4 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute the Statute. Longman’s appraisal, which covered the nine months up to Januarygave Richardson an overall performance rating of 8860a based on ratings of “Exceeded” on four of the six critical performance elements, compared to three out of six given by Fallaw.
The scores that dropped were:. Much the same can be said about the appraisal ratings actually in issue here, although there are other circumstances to be considered.
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 as the alleged discriminating official or responsible management –” Tr.
Neither animus nor a propensity to retaliate can be presumed merely because one does not expect Fallaw to have welcomed this honor. Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following Order.
Fallaw answered that it did not.
af form –
Those ratings might have been based entirely 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.
Richardson testified that she then asked how she could exceed in those areas and that Fallaw gave her no response Tr.
Department of Agriculture, U. As shop steward for Fabrication Flight, Richardson has the authority to file grievances and to represent employees in those grievances. However, her numerical scores on seven of the nine “appraisal factors” dropped by one point each.
As Fallaw cannot be expected to have admitted that she was influenced by personal bias against Richardson that was unrelated to protected activities even if she was and she realized it, her failure to claim that she was does not preclude my assessment of that possibility in determining whether there is a prima facie case.
AT-CA, involving the same parties as the instant case. However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the 8660a were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities.
Respondent’s answer denies that the individual ratings were lowered because of Richardson’s protected activities and that it committed the alleged unfair labor practices.