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):||3 April 2013|
|PDF File Size:||4.23 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.76 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
However, “[t]he mere fact that. 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 also asked Fallaw, among other things, whether her “Met” ratings on other performance elements were based on her union activities. Fallaw answered that it did not. 8860a
Such impressions could also account for Fallaw’s unwillingness to [ v56 p ] give Richardson anything but conclusory explanations for some of the ratings at their appraisal interviews. Longman’s appraisal, which covered the nine months up to Januarygave Richardson an overall performance rating of “Excellent” based on ratings of “Exceeded” on four of the six critical performance elements, compared to three out of six given by Fallaw.
Whether or not one believes that she justified the scores satisfactorily in her testimony, it was part of the General Counsel’s burden to show that those scores were, at least in part, a response to Richardson’s protected activities.
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
Richardson 860q 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. Longman had also been Richardson’s working-level supervisor during the appraisal year. On April 26,Fallaw gave Richardson her annual appraisal for the year ending March 31, Thanks for your contributions.
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.
Therefore, that possibility cannot support an affirmative inference. 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 factors below 8. Fallaw testified that Major Daley had no jurisdiction in that matter. These findings are based on the entire record. Fallaw responded that it did not. Much the same can be said about the appraisal ratings actually in issue here, although there are other circumstances to be considered.
The Authority, however, treated the case in effect as one in which the General Counsel had not established a prima facie case. 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. As stated at the beginning this Decision, the task of proving that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of that employee’s protected activities is a difficult one.
You are here Home U.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
However, the overall rating, despite the General Counsel’s attempt to have it 680a as a remedy for the alleged discrimination, is not within the scope of the complaint. Smith was recognized as Wage grade employee of ar 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 unit, and a go to technician for less knowledgeable members -Mr.
The record does not reveal what input she received from Richardson’s working level supervisors for that year’s appraisal. This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here.
The record does not reveal whether Richardson had a role with respect to any of the unfair labor practice cases involving Fallaw, but she had a role in Case No. 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.
AT-CA, involving the same parties as the instant case. On November 13,Fallaw, in 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.
This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case. Richardson testified that she then asked how she could exceed in those areas and that Fallaw gave her no response Tr. This resulted again in an overall rating of “Fully Successful. The General Counsel has undertaken the difficult task of showing that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of her protected activities.
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. 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.
However, 860 changes were relatively slight and there were several possible explanations for the scores. On cross-examination, over the General Counsel’s objection, counsel elicited from Richardson that she filed 12 “EEO cases.
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. Motivation here is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision.
However, her numerical scores on seven of the nine “appraisal factors” dropped by one point each. Whatever we receive will be posted on this page until we get enough foem to start organizing it.
Wagner placed marks at the extreme “needs little or no improvement” end of the lines for 21 performance categories and placed marks near the end of the line for 4 other subcategories.