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):||19 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||14.68 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.27 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
860z has signed several unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union. 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.
Richardson questioned a rating of “Met” rather 86a “Exceeded” on a noncritical element called “Extra Duties. 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. Richardson also answered affirmatively to a question about discussing the lowered “appraisal factor” scores with Fallaw Tr.
However, there were no a 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.
In upholding the Wright Line test, the Supreme Court stated: Her occupational status within that job title is “aircraft structural repair technician. Richardson testified that she then asked how she could exceed in those areas and that Fallaw gave her no response Tr.
Such a change is somewhat inconsistent with a plan to retaliate against Richardson, and supports the view that Fallaw called her own shots without any predisposition. 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 reason is close at hand.
In my view, the possibility that they were a contributing factor is, at best, no greater than that they were not. Richardson received an overall rating of “Fully Successful. Childers’ recommended appraisal form was not available at the time of the hearing and presumably had been destroyed. However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities. 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.
Richardson asked again whether the “Met” ratings on some of the “performance elements” were due to her union activities, and Fallaw said again that they were not. Smith is a true asset to the unit, providing top notch knowledge, talent, and expertise!
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
Moreover, there has been no showing 8860a Richardson’s union activities had intensified, or that Fallaw was mentioned more often in the grievances Richardson filed during the period covered by the appraisal at issue than during the previous appraisal period. Richardson’s civilian and military positions require substantially the same skills and functions.
This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case. 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. If the scores were colored by any bias, it appears to me at least as likely that such bias arose from personal considerations as that it arose from antiunion motivation.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
In the two years preceding her first appraisal from Fallaw, Richardson had received overall performance ratings of Excellent and no numerical scores on the appraisal qf below 8. Fallaw answered that it did not. Richardson asked Fallaw whether this related to her Union position.
She also perceived that Richardson underperformed with respect to facilitating the continuity of work on each of her projects by those replacing her on fofm next work shift. 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.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
Much the same can be said about the appraisal ratings actually in issue here, although there are other circumstances to be considered. The appraisal raters had been the immediate supervisors who assigned and evaluated Richardson’s work.
Wagner presented Richardson with a “Performance Feedback Worksheet” containing updated notations, in a different format, on performance categories similar to those covered in the Enlisted Performance Report. Although the scores recommended by Sergeant Longman were generally higher than Fallaw’s, Longman’s recommended score of “7” on Richardson’s “Working Relationships” was lower than any of the others he recommended for her, thus suggesting his concurrence with Fallaw that Richardson had not performed as well in this area as she had in others.
Smith is highly involved proactive member of the units retirement program make fodm every detail is covered -Mr. The final “appraisal factor” on which Richardson’s score dropped in was “Work Management.