Click here to skip navigation
OPM.gov Home  |  Subject Index  |  Important Links  |  Contact Us  |  Help

U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce

Advanced Search

Performance: Appraisal and Evaluation

(Page 2 of 3)

Application  |  Delay  |  Counseling  |  Frequency
Information  |  Limitations  |  Notification  |  Rating Levels  |  Timeliness
Training  |  Union Officials  |  Within Grade Increase  |  Miscellaneous


Delay
  1. Preventing management from evaluating an employee on newly assigned duties until the employee has received formal training in those duties. AFGE, Local 3004, 9 FLRA 723 [NN]
  2. Requiring reassignment to a position for which an employee is qualified and can reasonably be expected to demonstrate acceptable performance before the employee can be removed for unacceptable performance. National Labor Relations Board Union, 15 FLRA 55 [NN]. Remanded to the Federal Labor Relations Authority in National Labor Relations Board v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 84–1365 (D.C. Cir. 1984). On remand, National Labor Relations Board Union, 18 FLRA 320 [NN]
  3. Establishing a moratorium on performance appraisals while employees become familiar with new guidance governing their work. NFFE, Council of Consolidated SSA Locals, 17 FLRA 657, Proposal 1 [N]. Reversed in Health and Human Services v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 791 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1986)
  4. Providing a test for determining, prior to the implementation of a performance appraisal plan and after every third year, the objectivity of units of measurement used by management in those performance standards which apply to employees’ written work. POPA, 25 FLRA 384, Section 3H [NN]
  5. Agency to stay any Professional Standards Board action pending final resolution of appeal/negotiated grievance decision. AFGE, National Council of VA Locals, 29 FLRA 515, Proposal 8, Section 4, Subsection F [N]

Counseling

 To top of page
  1. Counseling of employees with unsatisfactory performance ratings. Illinois Nurses Association, 27 FLRA 714, Proposal 7, Article (X)VI [N]
  2. Counseling for employees whose performance bordered on unsatisfactory and providing employees with the criteria and procedures which would be used to appraise them. Illinois Nurses Association, 28 FLRA 212, Proposal 1, Article VI, Paragraph 3 [NN]
  3. Counseling employees performing at a marginal or unsatisfactory level. Illinois Nurses Association, 28 FLRA 212, Proposal 1, Article VI [NN]
  4. Specifying management official who is to counsel marginal or unsatisfactory nurses 90 days before proficiency report. National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, District 1199, 28 FLRA 435 [NN]
  5. Providing explicitly that supervisors shall perform the counseling. NFFE, Council of VA Locals, 31 FLRA 360, Proposal 18, Section 5 [NN]
  6. Counseling of employees before the final proficiency rating is rendered. NFFE, Council of VA Locals, 31 FLRA 360, Proposal 18, Section 6 [N]
  7. Agency to give probationary employees counseling and written guidance concerning their performance deficiencies in order to bring their performance to an acceptable level. AFGE, Local 1625, 31 FLRA 1281, Proposal 2 [NN]
  8. An employee who has received counseling and/or rehabilitative assistance is subject to administrative action for future conduct or performance-related problems caused by a handicapping condition. AFGE, Local 1603, 36 FLRA 162 [N]
  9. Requiring counseling and closer supervision for employees whose performance is less than “Fully Successful.” NAGE, Local R1–144, 38 FLRA 456, Proposal 14 [N]

Frequency

 To top of page
  1. Frequency with which periodic performance appraisals are made. AFGE, Local 1968, 5 FLRA 70, Proposal 2 [N]
  2. Requiring an annual performance appraisal cycle. AFGE, Local 3804, 7 FLRA 217, Proposal 3 [N]
  3. Establishing the appraisal as annual. AFGE, Local 2192, 9 FLRA 716, Proposal 3 [N]
  4. Requiring an annual rating within five days of the anniversary date of the previous rating. AFGE, Local 3028, 13 FLRA 697, Proposal 4 [N]
  5. Prescribing the frequency and scheduling of performance appraisals. AFGE, Local 1923, 21 FLRA 178, Proposals 4 and 5 [N]
  6. Prescribing the frequency of performance appraisals is negotiable. AFGE, National Council of VA Locals, 29 FLRA 515, Proposal 8, Section 3, Subsection A [N]
  7. Providing for annual ratings. NFFE, Council of VA Locals, 31 FLRA 360, Proposal 18, Article 17, Section 3 [N]
  8. Prescribing the frequency of employee evaluations. West Point Elementary School Teachers Association, NEA, 34 FLRA 1008, Provision 2, Article 10, Section 5, Subsections b and c [N]
  9. Requiring that periodic reviews of all performance elements be provided to employees not more than 3 workdays prior to the end of the appraisal period. NTEU, 35 FLRA 254 [N]

Information

 To top of page
  1. Requiring the agency to provide employees with copies of the reviewers’ findings. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 12 [N]
  2. Requiring the release of the review sheets to the union. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 13 [N]
  3. Stating that the technical and legal qualification of each reviewer will be disclosed in accordance with the requirements of proposal 18 (person’s technical background, technical training, and experience in the art area). POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 17, Section 17(4) [N]
  4. Requiring disclosure of information relative to the professional qualifications of the reviewers. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 17, Subsections 4–6 [N]
  5. Requiring the denials of permanent grants of signatory authority to be accomplished by disclosures regarding persons alleging errors in the examiners’ patent action(s) covering those person’s technical background, technical training, and experience in the art area. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 18, Section 18 [N]
  6. Establishing a time limit of one year or the duration of the rating period, whichever is longer, for the retention of supervisory notes related to performance evaluations. NAGE, 41 FLRA 529, Article 12, Section 8 [NN]
  7. Encouraging the agency to provide employees with certain performance information by prohibiting the agency from using that information in a particular manner if it fails to do so. AFGE, Local 3295, 44 FLRA 63 [N]
  8. Management will provide written explanations within 2 weeks when rejecting employees’ requests for changes in goals. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 25 [N]
  9. Management to provide to employees certain information concerning appraisals of their work. POPA, 47 FLRA 954, Provision 2, Section 24H [N]
  10. Requiring the agency to provide employees with written notice of changes in the procedures contained in reference manuals before holding employees accountable for errors in connection with the use of such manuals. POPA, 48 FLRA 129, Proposal 2 [NN, a(2)(A) & (B)]. Upheld in POPA v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 47 F.3d 1217 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
  11. Requiring the agency to maintain a separate record of certain specific performance–related information. POPA, 48 FLRA 129, Proposals 5 and 6 [N, (b)(2)]
  12. Requiring the agency to provide the union with detailed reports of major and minor errors of patent classifiers found by the agency in the application of its performance plan. POPA, 48 FLRA 129, Proposals 5 and 6, Section 24 [N]

Limitations

 To top of page
  1. Barring use of telephone monitoring information to evaluate performance. NTEU, 6 FLRA 522, Proposal VII [NN]
  2. Employer to recognize that performance of duties normally assigned to bargaining unit employees should be performed by properly qualified bargaining unit employees. National Association of Air Traffic Specialists, 6 FLRA 588, Proposal V, Article 80, Section 1 [NN]
  3. Establishing a procedure for counting work performed by microfilm examiners. NTEU, 7 FLRA 235, Proposals 1–5 [N]
  4. Barring unit employees from evaluating the performance of other employees. AFGE, Local 3385, 7 FLRA 398, Proposal 1, Article XIV, Section 5 [NN]
  5. Barring management from evaluating employees on the basis of the size of their backlogs. AFGE, National Council of Social Security Payment Center Locals, 7 FLRA 818, Proposal 7 [NN]
  6. Agency to support statistical data to be used in evaluating employee performance. NTEU, 8 FLRA 30 [N]
  7. Limiting management’s right to evaluate employees to those duties in their job descriptions. AFGE, Council of Social Security District Office Locals, 11 FLRA 608, Proposal 2 [N]
  8. Excluding time lost due to unavailability of telephones, or other needed facilities, from being charged against productive time, and requiring that trainees be given time allowances to learn and implement certain tasks. AFGE, Local 1923, 12 FLRA 17 [NN]
  9. Establishing the content of the standard for determining a given level of performance in a critical element in order for that employee to achieve a certain rating on that element. NTEU, 13 FLRA 329 [NN]
  10. Exempting certain positions from the appraisal system. IFPTE, Local 25, 13 FLRA 433, Proposal 1A (fifth sentence) [NN]
  11. Prohibiting the use of other duties as assigned as a basis for performance appraisals. IFPTE, Local 25, 13 FLRA 433, Proposal 1A (third sentence) [N]
  12. Governing when an employee will be rated unsatisfactory or outstanding. AFSCME, Council 26, 13 FLRA 578 [NN]
  13. Employees will be rated only on critical and non–critical elements. AFGE, Local 3028, 13 FLRA 697, Proposal 1, Section 4 [N]
  14. Limiting performance ratings in all elements to either unsatisfactory or highly satisfactory. AFGE, Local 32, 14 FLRA 6, Proposal 5 [NN]
  15. Defining the level of performance required to achieve a particular summary rating. AFGE, Local 2302, 15 FLRA 17, Proposal 4 [NN]
  16. Preventing management from considering an employee's lack of supervisory experience in evaluations. NLRB Union, Local 21, 15 FLRA 798 [NN]
  17. Establishing the quality of performance required to achieve the various summary performance ratings and establishing the levels required for quality step increases. AFGE, Locals 112, 3269, 3383 and 383, 15 FLRA 906, Proposals 1 and 2 [NN]
  18. Prescribing random sampling as the minimum procedure for auditing employee performance in terms of accuracy that is to be deemed unacceptable. AFGE, Local 1760, 15 FLRA 909, Proposals 1, 2, 5 and 7 [NN]
  19. Requiring performance appraisals and standards to take into account a failure to rotate employees. AFGE, Local 32, 17 FLRA 326 [NN]
  20. Preventing management from making critical or commendatory evaluations of performance of a work unit unless the conclusions have been first reflected on an “Appellate Review Memorandum.” NTEU, Chapter 91, 19 FLRA 647, Proposal 1 [NN]
  21. Prohibiting the use of the minimally satisfactory overall rating. AFGE, Local 2786, 20 FLRA 193, Provision 2, Article XXV, Section 6 [NN]
  22. Effectively prohibiting the use of enrollment statistics as a factor in evaluating instructor performance. Federal Federation of Federal Employees, 22 FLRA 539, Proposals 2 and 3 [NN]
  23. Specifying which supervisors will evaluate employees under certain conditions. NTEU, 21 FLRA 1051, Provisions 2–5, Article 8 [NN]
  24. Precluding the agency from using certain supervisory personnel, i.e., the selecting official, on a ranking panel which conducts an evaluation of employees. NTEU, 21 FLRA 1051, Provision 7, Article 9, Section 4A [NN]
  25. Requiring a jointly developed standardized definition of such words as courtesy should management decide to use them in performance appraisals. AFGE, General Committee for SSA Locals, 23 FLRA 329, Proposal 2 [NN]
  26. Requiring management to give employees a list of errors applicable to their work and to define and apply the errors consistently throughout the bargaining unit. AFGE, General Committee for SSA Locals, 23 FLRA 329, Proposal 5 [N]
  27. Requiring management to support evaluative conclusions based on observation by evidence gathered by valid, objective commonly accepted and understood evaluative techniques. AFGE, General Committee of AFGE for SSA Locals, 23 FLRA 329, Proposal 6 [N]
  28. Requiring management to take into account the fact that there will be reduced opportunities to use telephone monitoring as a method of performance evaluation when it assigns employees to work with clients who communicate poorly in English. AFGE, General Committee of AFGE SSA Locals, 23 FLRA 329, Proposal 7 [N]
  29. Requiring management to provide two examples of outstanding performance to support an outstanding rating and two examples of performance failing to meet the performance standard for a marginal or unsatisfactory rating on a critical element. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees, Metal Trades Council, 25 FLRA 3, Proposal 5, Article 20, Section 12 [NN]
  30. Establishing the quality of performance in individual job elements required to achieve a particular summary rating. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees, Metal Trades Council, 25 FLRA 3, Proposal 4, Article 20, Section 11 [NN]
  31. Precluding the agency from using the audit process to evaluate employee performance and to evaluate employees in certain circumstances. AFGE, Local 1760, 25 FLRA 16, Proposal 2 [NN]
  32. An employee may not be adversely evaluated in the critical element of courtesy to the public unless there are at least three complaints against that employee which have been substantiated by investigation. POPA, 25 FLRA 384, Section 3.G [NN]
  33. Prescribing the overall quality of performance that employees will be required to meet. POPA, 25 FLRA 384, Section 11B [NN]
  34. Prescribing a formula (specified averages) by which management must determine the level of performance required of employees to achieve a given performance rating. POPA, 25 FLRA 384, Section 6C [NN]
  35. Employee shall not be rated less than satisfactory unless that employee has made serious and repetitive errors in any one of five specified job elements. POPA, 25 FLRA 384, Section 7C [NN]
  36. Requiring management to change its production goal for a particular type of work when assigning an employee who is unfamiliar with that work. POPA, 25 FLRA 384, Section 9.B [NN]
  37. Employee will not be adversely evaluated for any error that the employee corrected prior to the evaluation. POPA, 25 FLRA 384, Section 11D [NN]
  38. Insulating an employee from an adverse performance evaluation when the employee's work materials had been destroyed. AFGE, Local 32, 26 FLRA 452, Proposal 2 [NN]
  39. Employee suffers no adverse impact for failure to follow the new training memorandum when such failure was due to circumstances beyond the employee’s control. AFGE, Local 32, 26 FLRA 612, Proposal 2 [NN]
  40. Establishing a method of balancing critical and noncritical job element ratings for the determination of summary ratings. NFFE, Local 1461, 26 FLRA 808, Provision 2, Article 29, Section 29.6 [NN]
  41. Nurses to be rated by their immediate supervisors, with approvals by the next higher supervisor. Illinois Nurses Association, 27 FLRA 714, Proposal 12, Article XVI [NN]
  42. Limiting a rating official’s ability to discuss a performance report with other personnel. Illinois Nurses Association, 27 FLRA 714, Proposal 12 (second sentence) [NN]
  43. Prohibiting the agency from taking into account factors beyond an employee’s control when appraising the employee. AFGE, Local 1409, 28 FLRA 109, Provision 1 (second sentence) [NN]
  44. Prohibiting management from charging errors during first 30 days of the issuance of guidance. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposal 4(b) [NN]
  45. Definition of material error may vary only to accommodate actual differences in work assignments, thereby prohibiting variations due to other circumstances. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposal 4(c) [NN]
  46. Supervisors who audit or review any aspect of the work performance of their employees to do so at least once per month or to spread audits as evenly as possible throughout the period for employee performance appraisals. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposals 5 and 6 [NN]
  47. Prohibiting management from considering certain errors, that is, those not discovered until a review by the Quality Assurance section, in evaluating the accuracy of employee’s work. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposal 11 [NN]
  48. Limiting management’s ability to evaluate employees in a variety of circumstances. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposal 13 [NN]
  49. Participation by unit employees in the Student Activity Fund Councils in the fund custodian and bookkeeper positions shall not be used in the employee’s annual performance appraisal. Overseas Education Association, 28 FLRA 936, Proposal 3 [NN]
  50. Concerning the preparation of a performance appraisal where the agency is unable to rate an employee because the length of time the employee has spent on a detail during the appraisal period does not permit the agency to make an annual appraisal based on the employee’s performance in his/her regularly assigned position. NTEU, 28 FLRA 1052, Proposal 2 [NN]
  51. Agency to limit to two times in one year its classroom visits used to prepare evaluation reports on permanent teachers and to identify deficiencies in their performance. NFFE, Local 1263, 29 FLRA 61, Proposal 3(a) [NN]
  52. Leaving to an employee the discretion to determine which Professional Standards Board will consider the employee’s performance. AFGE, National Council of VA Locals, 29 FLRA 515, Section 5, Subsection C [NN]
  53. Preventing the agency from using student test results as a factor in evaluating unit employee performance. Overseas Education Association, 29 FLRA 734, Proposal 6, Article 16, Section 5B (second sentence) [NN]
  54. Prohibiting employee evaluations based on results obtained by the use of indirect monitoring or observation devices such as a public address or audio system. Overseas Education Association, 29 FLRA 734, Provision 6, Article 16, Section 5B (fifth sentence) [NN]
  55. No performance appraisal would be based on performance of duties above the level to which the employee is permanently assigned unless the employee was paid at the higher level. Coordinating Committee of Unions, 29 FLRA 1436, Proposal 4, Section 5 (second sentence) [NN]
  56. Preventing management from using unannounced classroom observation when evaluating teacher performance. Fort Bragg Association of Educators, NEA, 30 FLRA 508, Proposal 33, Section 3 [NN]
  57. Prohibiting the agency from using student test results as a factor in evaluating unit employees. Fort Bragg Association of Educators, NEA, 30 FLRA 508, Proposal 32, Article 14, Section 2 (second sentence) [NN]
  58. Barring various techniques to evaluate performance. Fort Bragg Association of Educators, NEA, 30 FLRA 508, Proposal 32, Article 14, Section 2 (fourth sentence) [NN]
  59. Management to determine at time of receipt of information whether the information will be used in an employee’s evaluation. Fort Bragg Association of Educators, NEA, 30 FLRA 508, Proposal 32, Article 14, Section 2 (seventh sentence) [NN]
  60. Barring establishment of a meeting between a complaining parent and the teacher until the teacher has a chance to consult with the union and to have the union present at the meeting. Fort Bragg Association of Educators, NEA, 30 FLRA 508, Proposal 32, Article 14, Section 2 (ninth sentence) [NN]
  61. An element score of six on the current proficiency form is considered average. New York State Nurses Association, 30 FLRA 706, Proposal 18, Section 15 (seventh sentence) [NN]
  62. Precluding the performance award committee from making certain percentage determinations and from considering promotions in determining awards. AFGE, Local 3836, 31 FLRA 921, Proposal 3 [N]
  63. Performance award committee to include a member appointed from a list submitted by the union. AFGE, Local 3836, 31 FLRA 921, Proposal 4 [N]
  64. Agency to provide the statistics used in employees' evaluations to the concerned employees within 5 days of receipt by the supervisor. AFGE, Local 3272, 34 FLRA 675 (first sentence) [N]
  65. Agency to provide a written explanation of any delay beyond 5 days in furnishing the statistics to the employee concerned. AFGE, Local 3272, 34 FLRA 675 (second sentence) [N]
  66. Barring the use of any statistics “released too late for the employee to effectively review and/or rebut them” in evaluating employee performance. AFGE, Local 3272, 34 FLRA 675 (third sentence) [NN]
  67. Requiring the agency to consider certain factors in assessing an employee’s performance under generic job tasks 104 and 105. NTEU, 34 FLRA 1000, Provision 5 [NN]
  68. Specifying the techniques to be used to evaluate employee performance. West Point Elementary School Teachers Association, NEA, 34 FLRA 1008, Provision 2 [NN]
  69. Requiring the agency to sample employee's work in a particular manner for purposes of performance evaluation. West Point Elementary School Teachers Association, NEA, 34 FLRA 1008, Provision 2 [NN]
  70. Requiring the agency to consider certain factors in assessing attorney–advisors’ performance under Generic Job Task 104. NTEU, 34 FLRA 1022, Proposals 7B and 9B [NN]
  71. Establishing when an employee’s work is of acceptable quality. NTEU, 34 FLRA 1022, Proposal 15 [NN]
  72. Requiring that supervisors discuss performance ratings with employees within 3 workdays of the initial preparation of the rating of record. NTEU, 35 FLRA 254 [NN]
  73. Identifying certain types of Social Security claims which may require additional processing time and obligates management, in evaluating performance, to consider the additional time. AFGE, Local 3172, 35 FLRA 1276, Proposal 1 [N]
  74. Describing specific situations which will be deemed to be factors outside the control of the employee. AFGE, Local 3172, 35 FLRA 1276, Proposals 2 and 3 [N]
  75. Requiring that statistical data used in evaluating employee performance be compiled in a manner recognized as valid by the statistical community and that conclusions based on statistical data use techniques accepted as valid by the statistical community. AFGE, Local 3172, 35 FLRA 1276, Proposals 4 and 5 [N]
  76. Desk reviews reflect employee absences and additional adjudication handled by an employee in the 30-day period preceding a desk review. AFGE, Local 2879, 38 FLRA 244, Provision 1 (second sentence) [N]
  77. Requiring that certain information be included in performance plans. NAGE, Local R1–144, 38 FLRA 456, Proposal 4 (first sentence) [N]
  78. Addressing remedial actions to be afforded employees whose performance is less than “Fully Successful.” NAGE, Local R1–144, 38 FLRA 456, Proposal 6 [NN]
  79. Requiring the agency to include a place on the agency's performance appraisal form for an endorsement by the activity head designee. IFPTE, Local No. 1, 38 FLRA 1589, Proposal 3 [N]
  80. Providing that evaluation records not furnished to the affected employee within a specified time limit cannot be used for evaluation purposes. NTEU, 39 FLRA 27, Provision 12 [N]
  81. Performance on one factor that does not reflect the employee’s usual level of performance should not be allowed to unduly influence an overall rating. NTEU, 39 FLRA 731, Provision 2 [N]
  82. Requiring (1) at least 17 cases be reviewed, (2) the first 17 cases reviewed be done so by at least 2 reviewers, and (3) any cases in excess of 17 be reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 9 [NN]
  83. Requiring that the examiner be informed when a reviewer alleges that an error has been made. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 16, Section 16(A) [N]
  84. Requiring that each reviewer initially review the case free of knowledge of another reviewer’s opinion of the work. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 10, Section 10 [N]
  85. Requiring reviewers to consult with examiners and hear their clarifying explanations before reaching a judgment on the quality of their work. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 11 [N]
  86. Prohibiting the agency from reviewing an examination of a patent application before the case is completed by the examiner. POPA, 39 FLRA 783 [NN]
  87. Precluding the agency from using the quality control evaluations of individual map sheets as part of the performance appraisals of Project Leaders and Operational Support Assistants. NFFE, Local 1482, 39 FLRA 1169, Proposal 1 (first sentence) [NN]
  88. Specifying the ratings that the agency will use to evaluate map sheets. NFFE, Local 1482, 39 FLRA 1169, Proposal 1 (third sentence) [NN]
  89. Precluding the agency from designating the regional director of a regional office as the reviewing official of field office employees’ performance ratings. National Labor Relations Board Union, 42 FLRA 1305, Proposal 1, Section (a) [NN]. Reversed in National Labor Relations Board v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 2 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
  90. Requiring an employee's appraising official to prepare an independent appraisal of an employee’s performance before discussing it with the reviewing official. National Labor Relations Board Union, 42 FLRA 1305, Proposal 2, Section (b) [N]. Reversed in National Labor Relations Board v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 2 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
  91. Telephone Systems Analyst will not assess the performance of other employees in the bargaining unit. AFGE, Local 4041, 45 FLRA 3, Provision 3 [NN]
  92. Supervisors must prepare fair and objective performance appraisals. NTEU, 46 FLRA 696, Provision 22, Article 16, Section 10A [N]
  93. Requiring immediate supervisors to make acceptable level of competence determinations. NTEU, 46 FLRA 696, Provision 18, Article 15, Section 2A [NN]
  94. Incorporating the agency’s Performance Appraisal Program Statement. AFGE, Council of Prison Locals, 47 FLRA 836, Provision 1 [NN]
  95. Requiring the agency in evaluating Claims Representatives to give the time spent performing reception duties only the relative weight due those duties. AFGE, Local 1164, 49 FLRA 1408, Proposal 2 [NN, (a)(2)(A)]
  96. Precluding management from placing a Claims Representative on a Performance Improvement Plan solely because of performance on reception duties. AFGE, Local 1164, 49 FLRA 1408, Proposal 3 [NN, (a)(2)(A) and (B)]
  97. Preventing the agency from adversely affecting a unit member who does not report a computer system problem that the agency has failed to define through a set of standards. POPA, 56 FLRA 69, Proposal 20 [N]
  98. Preventing the agency from adversely affecting an examiner based on exceeding an arbitrary number of pages established by the agency that an examiner may print from the computer system. POPA, 56 FLRA 69, Proposal 29 [N]
  99. Precluding the agency from adversely affecting a unit employee based on alleged abuse of the automated system, through statistics, reports or other documents generated through the automated system, when the agency failed to define a set of standards describing the alleged abuse. POPA, 56 FLRA 69, Proposal 29 [N]
  100. Prohibiting the agency from making changes to the performance appraisal system until the end of the 1999–2000 school year. Federal Education Association, Stateside Region, 56 FLRA 473, Article 15, Section 2 [NN, (a)(2)(A) and (B)]
  101. All supervisors for whom a Specialist performs work totaling 150 hours or more will prepare an exit performance evaluation of that Specialist when the Specialist completes his or her work; and a Specialist’s supervisor will use that exit performance evaluation in preparing the Specialist’s annual performance appraisal. AFGE, Local 3529, 56 FLRA 1049, Proposal 3 [NN, (a)(2)(B)]
  102. Allowing individual auditors to decide whether they will use Audit Performance Planning System (APPS) in performing assigned audits. AFGE, Local 3529, 57 FLRA 172, Proposal 1 [PN, (b)(l)]
  103. Permitting auditors to decide the extent to which they will use electronic working papers, including Audit Performance Planning System, in performing an audit. AFGE, Local 3529, 57 FLRA 172, Proposal 10 [PN, (b)(l)]
  104. Precluding the agency from lowering an employee’s performance evaluation based upon that employee’s decision not to use Audit Performance Planning System in performing an audit. AFGE, Local 3529, 57 FLRA 172, Proposal 8 [NN, (a)(2)(A) and (B)]
  105. Precluding the agency from holding an auditor responsible for the inclusion of the Supervisory Auditor–reviewed file in the working papers package. AFGE, Local 3529, 57 FLRA 172, Proposal 9 [NN, (a)(2)(A) and (B)]

Previous Table of Contents Next


Labor Management Relations
 
PDF Help U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532