NWSEO Opposes DOC'S Proposal To Implement
Four-Tier Performance Rating System
“says it violates collective bargaining agreement and would result in more discrimination, more grievances and "dog-eat-dog'" competition in workplace
and destroy collaborative employee efforts to advance NOAA's mission.”
NWSEO today submitted the following memorandum to the Department of Commerce Office of Human Resource Management, urging it not to implement a new Departmental Administrative Order that would revamp the performance appraisal process Department-wide.
Ms. Octavia Richardson Labor Relations Manager
Office of Human Resources Management Department of Commerce
RE: NWSEO’s Comments and Recommendations on
Revised DAO 202-430 Dear Ms. Richardson:
This letter responds to your June 24 invitation to the National Weather Service Employees Organization to submit comments on the proposed revisions to Department Administrative Order 202-430, Performance Management.
Initially, we question whether the Department has fulfilled the letter and spirit of its obligation to consult with NWSEO prior to implementing DAO 202-430. DOC and NOAA are obligated to inform us of any proposed change in working conditions made on an agency-wide basis and to consider our view and recommendations prior to taking action. However, as indicated on the clearance sheet attached to the DAO, the new policy is in its final stages and
has already been cleared by the necessary offices, including OHRM. At this stage, it is hard to envision how the Department will give bona fide consideration to our views and recommendations as is required by the Statute. The effectiveness of NWSEO’s consultation is further hindered by the Department’s decision not to provide us with the critically important Performance Management Handbook, which is incorporated by reference in Section 1.02 of the draft DAO. Without the details that are provided in the Handbook, it is difficult if not impossible to ensure that our comments address all relevant areas of the changes proposed by the Department.
As clarified by your email of July 13, this DAO is intended to supercede the NOAA Administrative Order on the same subject. However, the terms of NAO 202-430 are specifically incorporated by reference into Article 13 of the NWS/NWSEO collective bargaining agreement as well as Article 14 of the NWSEO agreement with NOAA’s Office of General Counsel. Not all of the terms of the NAO are purely the exercise of management rights, subject only to impact and implementation negotiations. It also includes terms and procedures that are substantively negotiable.
Accordingly, it is our recommendation that NAO 202-430 not be rescinded. To the extent that the terms of the NAO and the DAO conflict, the NAO would be applicable within NOAA. The terms of the extent DAO 430 and NAO 202-430 have been inconsistent for years and have coexisted.
In the alternative, the following language should be added to section 3.05: “Line offices should continue to honor the provisions of existing collective bargaining agreements which may contain terms that are at variance with this Order, such as those in which line agencies have agreed to abide by terms of earlier administrative orders, until such agreements are renegotiated.”
Furthermore, we do not understand why the Department has proposed such dramatic changes in the performance appraisal system – such as the implementation of a four tier rating system. No justification has been offered for this change and therefore we are unable to assess and comment upon the rationale for the change. Absent such justification, the new DAO should not be issued.
We also object to the confusing numbering system for the four tier rating system. If there are to be four tiers, they should be numbered that way – 1, 2, 3 and 4.
In addition, the new DAO has omitted language contained in the 1982 DAO which we believe should be included:
3.04 Pre-established distributions of expected levels of performance (e.g., requiring supervisors to rate on a bell curve) shall not be permitted, since such distributions would interfere with appraisal of actual performance against standards.
We also oppose the extraordinary amount of additional service credit given to those employees who are rated as 4 and 5. This provision totally devalues seniority and assumes that an employee is more valuable than another who has four additional years of experience simply because of the fortuitousness happenstance of receiving a higher performance appraisal in a given year. While some additional service credit could rationally be given for a record of distinguished performance over a long term, an extraordinary amount of credit will be given under this DAO based solely on one year’s subjective evaluation. The unfairness of this becomes paramount when employees who are rated by different supervisors fall on the same retention register.
Perhaps most importantly, the multi-tiered performance appraisals should not be used for additional service credit unless and until the Department can validate the rating system and ascertain whether it will have an adverse impact on minority employees. Unless it can be demonstrated that the rating system under which hundreds or thousands of supervisors fairly rate all employees without intentional or unintentional biases, the Department will be faced with liability in the event that a disproportionate share of minority employees are displaced in a reduction in force.
Along a similar vein, the requirement in section 6.01(l) that employees submit “written documentation of accomplishments for both progress reviews and final appraisal” is highly inappropriate for many job classifications. It favors those employees who express themselves well in writing, as well as those who
have written work products. While we support in theory a system which guarantees that employees’ accomplishments will be brought to the attention of their rating officials, the exact process needs more careful study to ensure that it does not provide an unfair advantage to employees who are simply more outgoing, assertive or loquacious. Employees should not be allowed to “campaign” for a better performance rating at the expense of their colleagues, especially when awards and retention during a reduction in force are at stake. The establishment of the four tier performance appraisal system encourages this type of “dog-eat-dog” competition among employees, which will destroy the collaborative work environment which is so essential to the success of a science based agency such as NOAA. Needless to say, it will also result in countless grievances filed by employees seeking a higher performance rating and the attendant rewards.
We are unclear how a mandatory element for “customer service” would be applicable to many positions. For example, who are the “customers” of the flight engineers we represent at NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center? Or of the technicians at the Wallops Command and Data Acquisition Station? Not all employees are providing services to the public; many are in supporting roles and they can never be fairly rated on customer service. Who are the “customers” of the attorneys in the NOAA Office of General Counsel? Their ethical and professional obligations are to the overall legal interests of the agency, not to “customers.” Further, the irony is not lost on NWSEO of imposing a customer service element for employees without a reciprocal mandatory element of “effective management” for management employees. It also raises the question of why management employees must not also worry about “customers”.
Although generic performance standards have been in widespread and long term use, we have always believed that they were inconsistent with the objectives of the performance appraisal system. They are, frankly, so vague and obtuse as to be meaningless. DAO section 6.01(n) states that supervisors “may” create supplemental performance standards that focus on results for individual elements. However, all performance standards should be specific, job tailored, and responsive to the specific critical elements in an employee’s plan.
Finally, we wish to remind the Department and NOAA that before any changes in working conditions are implemented (to the extent that they can be implemented consistent with existing collective bargaining agreements), each of the NWSEO’s five contact points in each of its five bargaining units must be notified of any specific changes being made in current practices in sufficient time to allow for negotiations before implementation.
Sincerely yours,
Richard J. Hirn, General Counsel
