PERFORMANCE . . . AWARDS

Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. and Chapter 209, National Treasury Employees Union, Case No. 99 FSIP 168, March 20, 2000 (Release No. 430).

The UNION proposed that:

1. The Agency would establish an awards pool for bargaining unit employees that would be equal, on a percent-of-total-salary basis, to that of non-unit employees or subgroup thereof, whichever is the most generous. The Agency would be permitted to allocate up to 10 percent of the bargaining unit pool for one-the-spot awards.

2. Employees could be nominated by a co-worker, a manager or other FCC official, or they could nominate themselves.

3. Nominations would be reviewed by a joint awards committee consisting of three representatives of each party. (Joint awards committees would be established at the Bureau/Office level, except for the Office of workplace Diversity and the Office of Communication and Business Opportunities.) The awards committees would meet twice a year and would decide (by majority vote) which employees are to receive awards and in what amount ($500, $1,000, or 1,500).

4. Employees receiving awards would be ineligible to receive another award for two calendar quarters.

5. The Agency would distribute "all available awards money by the end of the fiscal year."

6. Semiannually, the parties would develop data to ensure reasonably equal distribution of award money on a percent-of-total-salary basis, among all FCC subdivisions, as well as by race, gender, age, and disability status.

7. Section 2 and Section 3 of the current CBA, dealing with cash suggestion awards and the timely delivery of awards, respectively, would remain in effect; and Section 4, dealing with the establishment of an awards working group, would be deleted.

The AGENCY proposed that:

1. There would be no entitlement to an award; and awards would be subject to budgetary limitations and would be made at its discretion.

2. It would establish an award pool for bargaining unit employees "based on a percentage of salary, 'comparable to the award pool for supervisors and managers,'" derived as follows:

(1) the Employer would allocate funding for long-term awards at the start of each fiscal year to individual Bureaus/Offices; (2) each Bureau/Office would set aside award pool amounts for unit employees "in proportion to the total salaries of unit employees in the Bureau/Office at the start of the fiscal year; and (3) distribution of funds from each award pool "may vary plus or minus [five] percent of the amount originally funded."

The awards program would include on-the-spot cash awards as well as long-term achievement awards and special act or service awards.

3. Nominations for awards would have to be supported by a written justification under pre-established eligibility criteria that "the nominating or recommending official would have to refer to." Employees could be nominated at any time for performance during the year prior to the nomination.

4. An Employee of the Year award would also be established. It would be funded at a minimum level of $10,000 and would use the same eligibility criteria as for the other types of performance awards.

5. Nominations for Employee of the Year could be made by "an employee's peers, immediate supervisor, or other management representative...." The committee would review the nominations, approve (by consensus), and "allocate available funds among those employees it wishe[d] to recognize as an Employee of the Year." The committee's recommendations would go to the FCC Chairman or his designee for final approval.

6. Awards data showing funding levels within each Bureau/Office and "how awards were distributed on a race and national origin basis" would be given to the Union on an annual basis.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the AGENCY's proposal.

PERFORMANCE . . . APPRAISALS

Department of Defense, Montana Air National Guard, Great Falls, Montana and Montana Air Chapter 29, Association of Civilian Technicians, Case No. 00 FSIP 35, April 18, 2000 (Release No. 431).

The UNION proposed that the scope of the negotiated grievance and arbitration procedures be expanded to allow technicians to grieve disputes over performance appraisals they don't agree with and unacceptable performance appraisals.

Under the current collective bargaining agreement these disputes are excluded from the NGP. To challenge a performance appraisal, a technician must file an appeal with the State Review and Appeals Board.

The AGENCY proposed that the Panel decline to take jurisdiction because the proposal is outside the duty to bargain, i.e., contrary to the Technicians Act. Should the Panel take jurisdiction, the AGENCY alternatively proposed a dispute resolution procedure that would---

(1) allow employees to have Union representation during all phases of the process; (2) shorten the time frames for resolving the dispute; (3) allow the Wing commander to review the appeal, . . . ; and (4) change the composition of the State Board to consist of two voting management representatives, two voting Union representatives, and one voting peer of the appellant who is also a member of the bargaining unit.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the UNION's proposal.

PERFORMANCE . . . AWARDS

Department of the Air Force, Luke Air Force Base, Luke AFB, Arizona and Local 1547, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 00 FSIP 22, April 14, 2000 (Release No. 431).

The AGENCY proposed the following:

With the available funds in the organization awards program, the Awards Approving Official will grant Performance Awards to all employees who receive an Acceptable rating taking into consideration various circumstances during the rating period. Such circumstances for any exceptions include, but are not limited to: disciplinary action, extended sick leave, insufficient award justification, leave without pay, length of time in position, long-term full-time training, promotion, and unacceptable rating.

The UNION proposed the following:

With the available funds in the Commander's awards program, when the unit commander determines performance awards will be granted, all employees who receive an Acceptable rating during the appraisal period, shall be recommended for an equal award as determined by their unit commander (i.e., percentage-based or dollar-based). Such approval shall not be withheld unless the decision is based on criteria that are uniformly applied to all employees. Notice of disapproval must be in writing and explain the reason(s) for the disapproval.

The Luke AFB Performance Appraisal Form shall be altered to incorporate the written explanation for disapproval.

The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the following:

With the available funds in the organization awards program, the Awards Approving Official will grant Performance Awards to all employees who receive an Acceptable rating taking into consideration various circumstances during the rating period. Such circumstances for any exceptions are: disciplinary action, extended sick leave, insufficient award justification, leave without pay, length of time in position, long-term full-time training, and promotion.

All performance award recommendations will be justified in writing in bullet format and submitted on AF Form 806A, Part C.

The Employer will supply award data to the Union on an annual basis which show the amount of each performance award recommended by each supervisor, and how awards were distributed on a race and national origin basis.