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):||18 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||9.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.70 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Smith is highly involved proactive member of the units retirement program make certain every detail is covered -Mr. 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 860q he testified that the employee’s performance was “great” and had remained the same during the later appraisal period.
Fallaw testified that Major Daley had no jurisdiction in that matter.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following Order. However, the overall rating, despite the General Counsel’s attempt to have it changed as a remedy for the alleged discrimination, is not within the scope of the complaint. 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.
Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. Richardson questioned a rating of “Met” rather than “Exceeded” on a noncritical element called “Extra Duties. On April 16,Richardson received her first performance appraisal from Fallaw. Whatever we receive will be posted on this page until we get enough material to start organizing it.
As the presiding judge in Case No. After Fallaw assumed that position, other supervisors below her in the chain of command worked with Richardson on a day-to-day basis. She also perceived that Richardson underperformed with respect to facilitating the continuity of work on each of her projects by those replacing her on the next work shift.
To contribute, copy and paste into the form below or send to foorm airforcewriter. Fallaw said just that there was room for improvement. Fallaw’s name is sometimes misspelled as “Mallaw” in the transcript of the hearing. The Authority is not to substitute its judgment for that of the rater.
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed by the General Counsel. The score of “7” for “Adaptability to Work” was no higher because of fform reports to Fallaw of occasions when Richardson had failed to wear the proper clothing or safety equipment in certain areas where they were required.
Fallaw again held an appraisal interview with Richardson when she gave her the AF Form A for 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.
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.
Similarly, it is not to be presumed that Fallaw consciously “lowered” Richardson’s numerical scores, or that, absent antiunion motivation, her assessment of Richardson’s performance must have remained the same from year to year.
Neither animus nor a propensity to retaliate can be presumed merely because one does not fodm Fallaw to have welcomed this honor.
af form –
On the front side of the sheet are listed nine “Appraisal Factors. 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.
Harley Wagner, 860w first-line military supervisor and “rater,” and a concurrence, plus additional comments, by Fallaw as the “indorser.
At least two of them, Sergeant Longman, who supervised the work area in which Xf spent most of her time, and Sergeant Childers, provided Fallaw with recommended appraisals on AF Form A. Fallaw cited reports she received from working-level supervisors that they were afraid to put Richardson on jobs that had deadlines.
This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here. I have no idea about the accuracy of the description, but I correct the transcript for, read “Master Sergeant.
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. Much the same can be said about the appraisal ratings actually in issue here, although there are other circumstances to be considered. Richardson and Fallaw met in April to discuss this appraisal. On March 27,Msgt.
Richardson asked Fallaw if the last sentence had anything to do with her union activity. Instead of fixed categories of ratings, however, this worksheet calls for the rater to place a mark in the appropriate position on a horizontal line representing the individual’s need for improvement in each of the designated performance areas.
Smith lead unit in boom nozzle and ice shield rebuild on ACFT -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 -Mr.
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 an affirmative defense to the General Counsel’s prima facie case. 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.
Fallaw as the alleged discriminating official or responsible management –” Tr. Richardson questioned Fallaw about why was rated “Met” and not “Exceeded” on a critical performance element called “Communications Discipline” G.
In preparing to rate Richardson for the period, Fallaw sought the input of the working-level supervisors who had observed Richardson most closely. Find a listing of all of the FLRA’s current job openings.
Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The General Counsel has undertaken the difficult task of showing that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of her protected activities.
Smith is a true asset to the unit, providing top notch knowledge, talent, and expertise! 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.
Moreover, there has been no showing that 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 also answered affirmatively to a question about discussing the lowered “appraisal factor” scores with Fallaw Tr.
Motivation here is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision.