AF FORM 860A PDF
May 23, 2020 | by admin
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):||8 September 2014|
|PDF File Size:||18.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.83 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Nor does an antiunion explanation cry out for acceptance in these circumstances.
In the two zf preceding her first appraisal from Fallaw, Richardson had received overall performance ratings foem Excellent and no numerical scores on the appraisal factors below 8. 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.
Fallaw said just that there was room for improvement.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
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 a concurrence with Fallaw that Richardson had not performed as well in this area as she had in others.
Richardson’s “Self-Sufficiency,” where she again dropped from “8” to “7,” was limited by a perceived failure to match 860w enthusiasm and initiative she demonstrated while working in the “composite area” with a similar approach to work required in other areas. To contribute, copy and paste into the form below or send to editor airforcewriter. Richardson and Fallaw met in April to discuss this appraisal. Richardson questioned Fallaw about why was rated “Met” and not “Exceeded” on a 8860a performance element called “Communications Discipline” G.
A similar relatively low rating in “Communication” was, according to Fallaw, a result of Richardson’s frequent use of “improper routes or channels” to communicate. In upholding the Wright Line test, the Supreme Court stated: Fallaw again held an appraisal interview with Richardson when she gave her the AF Form A for Robins55 FLRA at “[H]ad a prima facie a of discrimination been established, a more thorough evaluation and analysis of Foem affirmative defenses would have been necessary.
On the front side of the sheet are listed nine “Appraisal Factors.
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
Respondent’s answer denies that the individual ratings were lowered because of Richardson’s protected activities and that it committed the alleged unfair labor for. 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 gorm noncritical elements in the appraised employee’s “performance plan.
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.
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. Neither animus nor a propensity to retaliate can be presumed merely because one does not expect Fallaw to have welcomed this honor.
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 860q his allegedly lowered performance appraisal, the Authority found that the evidence failed to establish that the employee was discriminated against because he engaged in protected activity.
As the presiding judge in Case No.
Smith was 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 unit, and a go to technician for less knowledgeable members -Mr. 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.
It contains a set of ratings and comments by Msgt. 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.
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.
At 86a 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 for did Tr. Such influence might reflect legitimate managerial considerations, personal bias, or both. 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. This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case. The appraisal form used for employees such as Richardson, AF Form A, contains spaces for two sets of ratings. Thanks for your contributions. The Authority has found a prima facie showing of discrimination where the appraising supervisor, in comments to the appraised employee, connected the employee’s protected activities with the performance that was being evaluated, U.
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. However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the fomr were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities.
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 for, affirmative defense to the General Counsel’s prima facie case. Much the same can be said about the appraisal ratings actually in issue here, av there are other circumstances to be considered. The transcript of the hearing identifies Harley as a “massive sergeant” Tr. The possibility of personal animosity or insecurity is suggested by: In her fa 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.
Therefore, that possibility cannot support an affirmative inference.
There were no material conflicts in testimony. This page started at readers’ fodm. Whatever the reason for these actions, the circumstances do not permit anything more than a suspicion that antiunion considerations were a contributing factor.
As shop steward for Fabrication Flight, Richardson has the authority to file grievances and to represent employees in those grievances. 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.
She then proceeded to assign her own numerical scores to the “appraisal factors.