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 1 of 3)

***Note: Due to the size of this file it has been separated into 3 pages. At the bottom of each page are buttons that will either allow you to advance to the next page or return to the previous page.

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


Application

  1. Employee must be given an opportunity to perform satisfactorily in another position at the same grade before the employee can be demoted or terminated for unacceptable performance. AFGE, Local 1760, 9 FLRA 1025, Proposal 1 [NN]
  2. Employee whose performance exceeds the minimum standard for satisfactory in at least one element will be deemed to have performed acceptably, without regard to performance in any other job element. AFSCME, Local 2027, 12 FLRA 643, Proposal 2, Section 4 [NN]
  3. Agency to endeavor to ensure that employees are provided the variety of work necessary to maintain proficiency. NTEU, 13 FLRA 48, Proposal 2 [N]
  4. Management to reassign to the claim authorizer position an employee who is found to be performing unsatisfactorily as a claim instructor. AFGE, Local 1395, 14 FLRA 408 [NN]
  5. Establishing progressive steps which must be applied when an employee is performing unacceptably. AFGE, Local 1708, 15 FLRA 3, Proposal 3 [NN]
  6. Progressive remedial action for unacceptable performance. AFGE, Local 15, 15 FLRA 954, Proposal 3 [NN]
  7. Establishing progressive steps management must take before terminating an employee for unacceptable performance. AFGE, Local 1940, 16 FLRA 816, Proposal 7 [NN]
  8. Agency to attempt where possible to apply progressive remedial action for unacceptable performance. AFGE, Local 2786, 20 FLRA 193, Provision 1, Article XXV, Section 5 [NN]
  9. Agency to use a negotiated performance evaluation form rather than the agency–wide form. AFGE, Local 1923, 21 FLRA 178, Proposals 2 and 3 [N]
  10. Unit employees to be told which supervisors or managers are empowered to supervise their performance or on–the–job conduct. AFGE, Local 1738, 27 FLRA 52, Proposal 2 [N]
  11. Precluding the agency from establishing a production standard or quota for detailed employees in order to evaluate their performance. NTEU, Chapter 22, 29 FLRA 348, Proposal 3 [NN]
  12. Employees are not responsible for work over which they have no control. NTEU, Chapter 22, 29 FLRA 348, Proposal 11 (fourth sentence) [NN]
  13. Agency to provide 90 days advance warning before an unsatisfactory rating is given to an employee. AFGE, National Council of VA Locals, 29 FLRA 515, Proposal 8, Section 4, Subsection B [N]
  14. Providing employees with a 90–day period to improve performance. AFGE, National Council of VA Locals, 29 FLRA 515, Proposal 8, Section 4, Subsection B [N]
  15. Agency to reassign an employee whose performance is unsatisfactory rather than taking action against the employee based on unsatisfactory performance. AFGE, National Council of VA Locals, 29 FLRA 515, Proposal 8, Section 4, Subsection C [NN]
  16. Professional Standards Board to consider various options should it sustain the employee’s unsatisfactory performance rating. AFGE, National Council of VA Locals, 29 FLRA 515, Proposal 8, Section 4, Subsection D [N]
  17. The performance review system to be fair and consistent both within sections and from section to section throughout the agency. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposal 1 [NN]
  18. Decisions regarding material errors will be fair and consistent. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposal 7(a) [NN]
  19. Preventing management from considering, for performance reasons, time spent by employees on the job before actual work assignments are made. AFGE, Local 32, 28 FLRA 714, Proposal 12 [NN]
  20. Specifying a performance period was “short term” unless the performance is averaged over a period of at least twelve consecutive months. POPA, 29 FLRA 1389, Proposal 6 [NN]
  21. Specified improvement period to be 7 pay periods unless the employee and his supervisor agree on a different specified improvement period of a least 3 pay periods. POPA, 29 FLRA 1389, Proposal 7, Section 16D [N]
  22. Probationary employee to be given a written summary of quarterly discussions concerning the employee’s performance. New York State Nurses Association, 30 FLRA 706, Proposal 8, Section 7.03 [N]
  23. Establishing a procedure by which nurses may raise questions regarding the application of the proficiency rating and setting out procedural steps management will follow before it makes a final appraisal of an employee. New York State Nurses Association, 30 FLRA 706, Proposal 18, Section 15 [N]
  24. An employee will be given an opportunity to improve performance prior to receiving an unsatisfactory or marginal rating. New York State Nurses Association, 30 FLRA 706, Proposal 18, Section 15 (second sentence) [N]
  25. Employees’ performance ratings will not be affected adversely by the use of officially approved leave. NFFE, Council of VA Locals, 31 FLRA 360, Proposal 12, Article 14a [N]
  26. Providing a statement of purpose of proficiency ratings. NFFE, Council of VA Locals, 31 FLRA 360, Proposal 18, Article 17, Section 1 [N]
  27. Agency to give employees on 100% official time a performance rating of fully successful or higher depending on the average rating of other employees with the same job description. Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, 34 FLRA 873 [NN]
  28. Requiring the agency’s performance appraisal system to be fair, equitable and job–related. Department of Education Council of AFGE Locals, 34 FLRA 1114, Proposal 1 [NN]
  29. Performance appraisal system is the principal source of performance appraisal information for training, rewarding, reassignment, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and removing employee. Department of Education Council of AFGE Locals, 34 FLRA 1114, Proposal 2 [N]
  30. Specifying that a particular supervisor will evaluate employees and precluding a particular manager from evaluating employees affected by the reorganization for 90 days after the reorganization. NTEU, Chapter 12, 36 FLRA 70, Proposals 1 and 2 [NN]
  31. Requiring that performance evaluation not take into account factors beyond an employee’s control which may cause the employee to fall below a specific performance level. NFFE, Local 2096, 36 FLRA 834, Provision 2, Article VIII, Section 13b(5) [NN]
  32. Requiring that the appraisal period be extended so that an employee will have performed his or her assigned duties for a minimum of 90 days before assignment of a rating of record. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, 37 FLRA 938, Proposal 1(A) [N]
  33. Requiring that an employee’s last three official ratings of record be maintained in the employee’s file or other appropriate place as determined by management. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, 37 FLRA 938, Proposal 1(B) [N]
  34. Requiring that, if an employee has not served in his or her current position for the minimum rating period, the employee's last three ratings of record be used in determining the employee’s retention standing in the event of a reduction in force. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, 37 FLRA 938, Proposal 1(C) [NN]
  35. Requiring that the most recent rating of record on file be destroyed after assignment of a current rating of record. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, 37 FLRA 938, Proposal 1(D) [N]
  36. Requiring that the most recent rating of record on file be used in the case of performance awards. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees, Metal Trades Council, 37 FLRA 938, Proposal 1(E) [NN]
  37. Requiring that employee’s “PARS” forms be annotated to show why they have no current ratings of records. Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees, Metal Trades Council, 37 FLRA 938, Proposal 1(F) [N]
  38. Establishing the criteria for determining when an apprentice's work experience performance is below fully successful. Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, 38 FLRA 59 [NN]
  39. Requiring that when an absence of work makes a level of performance unattainable, such fact is to be considered a factor that is beyond the control of the employee. AFGE, Council 147, 38 FLRA 110, Provision 3, Article 12, Section e [N]
  40. Addressing the treatment of close out ratings in deriving annual ratings. NAGE, Local R1–144, Federal Union of Scientists and Engineers, 38 FLRA 456, Proposal 2, item 5(e) [N]
  41. Requiring employees’ performance to be measured against established performance standards based on observable performance. NTEU, 39 FLRA 346, Provision 1, Article 37, Section 4(A) [N]
  42. Requirements for evaluating employees’ performance. NTEU, 39 FLRA 346, Provision 2, Article 37, Section 4(c) [NN]
  43. Precluding the agency from removing signature authority from an employee, or the promotion which accompanies it, if an employee performs at a marginal level. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 4 [NN]
  44. Limiting the agency’s ability to evaluate the examiner’s judgment by holding the examiner harmless when he or she accepts incorrect advice. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 5 [NN]
  45. Requiring that, in those groups where examiners are failing in the Signatory Authority Program at a disproportionate rate, the reviewer in those groups would conduct sample reviews, which would be evaluated in order to determine the cause of the failures, so that certain corrective action could be taken. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 19, Section 19(2) [N]
  46. Requiring that whenever possible each case will be reviewed by a reviewer who has technical competence in the art area being reviewed and who is familiar with the specific examining procedures used in that art area. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 19, Section 19(3) [N]
  47. Requiring that management, the union and the employee agree on adjustments in the evaluation to compensate for the difficulty of handling an unfamiliar case. POPA, 39 FLRA 783, Proposal 15(B) [NN]
  48. Requiring the agency to make adjustments to the rating specialists’ performance standards to correspond to the reduced productivity credit given to the rating specialists under the altered work–rate standards. AFGE, Local 2062, 39 FLRA 857 [NN]
  49. Requiring the agency to ensure that union representatives are not interfered with, restrained, or coerced in the exercise of the right to serve as union representatives through the application of performance standards. NTEU, 40 FLRA 570, Proposal 1(A), Section 10D [N]
  50. Requiring that the time spent on union representational activities not be considered as a negative factor in evaluating an employee. NTEU, 40 FLRA 570, Proposal 1(B), Section 10D [N]
  51. Requiring that frequent, authorized interruptions of an employee union representative’s normal work be taken into account in the employee’s evaluation. NTEU, 40 FLRA 570, Proposal 1(D), Section 10D [N]
  52. Requiring the agency to take into account such mitigating factors as the availability of resources, lack of training, or frequent, authorized interruptions of normal work duties, in determining an employee’s performance evaluation. NTEU, 40 FLRA 570, Proposal 2, Section 10E [N]
  53. Requiring the agency to inform probationary employees of their progress before the end of the tenth month of their probationary periods. NTEU, 40 FLRA 849, Article 28, Section 1 [N]
  54. Employees will not be held accountable for delays in case processing caused by or related to the relocation of their offices. NTEU, 44 FLRA 293, Provision 3, Section 21 [NN]
  55. Prohibiting the agency from using the Agency's Data Integration System to electronically monitor employees’ work performance. NFFE, Local 1482, 44 FLRA 637, Proposal 3 [NN]
  56. All applicants for bargaining unit positions to be evaluated against the same criteria. NTEU, 45 FLRA 339, Provision 8, Article 9, Section 1(C) [N]
  57. Establishing the productivity requirements for particular performance ratings. NTEU, Local R14–52, 45 FLRA 910, Provision 1 [NN]
  58. Documentation collected for performance purposes will be related to an applicable Generic Job Task. AFGE, Local 3509, 46 FLRA 1590, Proposal 12 [NN]
  59. Constituting a restatement of the agency’s policy regarding the performance of analyses and completion of statistical reports by the Reviewer, which is placed in the agreement for informational purposes. AFGE, Local 3509, 46 FLRA 1590, Proposal 23 [N]
  60. Requiring management to meet with employees to discuss establishment or modification of a performance appraisal plan. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 9 [N]
  61. Employees will not be held responsible for matters beyond their control. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 11 [N]
  62. The agency will consider all job functions an employee performs in evaluating the employee. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 14 [N]
  63. Agency docket reports will be delivered to employees on a particular day during the bi-week. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 17 [N]
  64. Examiners are entitled to rely on the completeness of the docket report. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 17 [N]
  65. Requiring management to document the contributions of each employee involved in certain actions. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 18 [N]
  66. Management annually will provide employees with a list of bases and reasons which the agency has used to grant a waiver or excuse. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 19 [N]
  67. Examiners specifically will record the time spent on record keeping and time spent providing explanations of excuses and requests for waivers. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 20 [N]
  68. Requiring evaluation of employees’ work products at the completion of each assignment. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 21 [N]
  69. The rating officials will prepare one annual performance appraisal and conduct a performance review at the midpoint of the rating year for each employee. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 32 [N]
  70. Requiring management to consider all extenuating circumstances in rating an employee’s performance. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 33 [N]
  71. Requiring rating officials to notify employees of the dates and times of formal appraisal meetings. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 34 [N]
  72. An employee will sign and date a statement certifying that his/her proposed performance rating was discussed with the rating official. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 36 [N]
  73. If approving officials deny employees' requests to raise their recommended performance ratings, the reasons for the denials will be explained in writing. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 37 [N]
  74. Performance appraisals will be based on performance during the fiscal year and that ratings generally will be completed by November 15. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 38 [N]
  75. Only performance during the established appraisal period will be used in determining employees' ratings for that period. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 39 [N]
  76. Specifying the rating levels for three and five level performance rating systems. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provisions 40 and 41 [N]
  77. Protecting employees from adverse performance evaluations attributable to directed or authorized performance of non–examining functions. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 26 [N]
  78. Complaints against an employee will be considered valid only when in writing and the complainant is identified. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provision 27 [NN]. Upheld in POPA v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 26 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
  79. A rating official will maintain documentation supporting assigned performance ratings and resolve employees’ complaints concerning the accuracy of performance records. POPA, 47 FLRA 10, Provisions 29 and 30 [N]
  80. A determination of a decrease in performance to be predicated on a considerable body of work. NTEU, 47 FLRA 705, Provision 1, Section 2b [NN]
  81. The agency will maintain and, if necessary, create documentation supporting an evaluation and provide that documentation to the subject employee. NTEU, 47 FLRA 705, Provisions 2 and 3 [N]
  82. Performance evaluations to take into account all job functions and the amount of time available to employees. NTEU, 47 FLRA 705, Provision 4 [N]
  83. The lack of agreement among reviewers on whether a particular matter is an error will be “considered as evidence” that the matter is a difference in professional judgment rather than an error. POPA, 47 FLRA 954, Provision 3 [N]
  84. Except for Technical Assistant reviews, no unit–prepared reviews of Partnership for Excellence Plan cases would be used in Employee Assessment System or employee performance assessments. AFGE, National Council of SSA Field Operations, Locals (C–220), 47 FLRA 1304, Section C.3(a) [NN]
  85. A table that sets forth certain military ranks and their equivalent civilian grades for purposes of designating military personnel who may evaluate the performance of civilian employees and civilian employees who may evaluate the performance of military employees. NFFE, Local 1332, 47 FLRA 1357 [NN]
  86. Precluding management from holding employees accountable for work performance that is dependent on the action of other employees over whom they have no control. POPA, 48 FLRA 129, Proposal 1, Section 23 [NN, (a)(2)(A) & (B)]
  87. Requiring the agency to provide employees written guidance as to what constitutes an error under the circumstances described in the proposal and allows employees, if such guidance is not provided in their performance plans, to assume that a patent assignment in the circumstances of the proposal is not an error for evaluation purposes. POPA, 48 FLRA 129, Proposal 7, Section 25 [NN, (a)(2)(A) & (B)]
  88. Requiring the supervisor to discuss performance expectations with employees at the beginning of their appraisal periods. AFGE, Local 1345, 48 FLRA 168, Proposal 2, Article 6, Section 8 [N]
  89. Certain time will not be considered in evaluating performance. NFFE, Local 1655, 49 FLRA 874, Provision 2, Article 17, Section 8e(5) [NN, (a)(2)(A) and (B)]
  90. Setting forth the performance ratings that employees must receive in order to apply for Career Status. National Education Association, Fort Bragg Association of Educators, 53 FLRA 898, Proposal 3 [NN, LAW]
  91. Precluding the agency from basing a performance evaluation or disciplinary action exclusively on information from the automated system unless the agency has provided the affected employee the opportunity to review the information within a reasonable period of time after the information was obtained. POPA, 56 FLRA 69, Proposal 32 [NN, (a)(2)(A)]
  92. Allowing management to make changes in work assignments (and hence performance standards) during the rating period. NAGE, Local R1–100, 56 FLRA 268, Proposal 5 [N]
  93. Requiring a supervisor, other than the supervisor placing the employee on a performance improvement plan, to evaluate the employee’s performance. NAGE, Local R1–100, 56 FLRA 268, Proposal 8 [NN, (a)(2)(A)]
  94. Prohibiting the agency from changing the performance rating formula set forth in the 1993 regulation. AFGE, Local 225, 56 FLRA 686, Proposal 1 [NN, (a)(2)(A) and (B)]
  95. Prohibiting the agency from changing the performance rating formula set forth in the pre–1993 formula. AFGE, Local 225, 56 FLRA 686, Proposal 2 [NN, (a)(2)(A) and (B)]
  96. Prescribing the formula for calculating whether an employee’s performance warrants an overall summary rating of Success Level l or Success Level 2 in the Base System and the Senior System. AFGE, Local 1858, 56 FLRA 1115, Proposal 1 [NN, (a) (2) (A) and (B)]
  97. Requiring the agency to retain its practice of preparing and distributing Senior Rater Profiles to all employees. AFGE, Local 1858, 56 FLRA 1115, Proposal 2 [NN, LAW]
  98. Requiring management to delete from the performance evaluation form the section in which rating officials may comment regarding an employee's performance with respect to the Army values set forth in the TAPES regulation. AFGE, Local 1858, 56 FLRA 1115, Proposal 3 [NN, (a) (2) (B)]

Previous Table of Contents Next


Labor Management Relations