Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v32/32-088.html
Timestamp: 2016-08-28 02:15:10
Document Index: 637653878

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4302', '§\n430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 4302', '§ 430', '§ 4302', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 4302', '§ 4302', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 213', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430']

You are hereHome [Decision Number] 32:0607(88)NG - - NAGE Locals R4-26 and R4-106 and Air Force, Langley AFB, Virginia - - 1988 FLRAdec NG - - v32 p607
[ v32 p607 ] 32:0607(88)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 32 FLRA No. 88 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON, D.C. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCALS R4-26 AND R4-106
Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Agency Case No. 0-NG-1506 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY
ISSUES I. Statement of the Case This case is before the Authority because of a
of three proposals submitted by the Union in response to changes in the
Agency's Performance Management Program (Air Force Regulation 40-452).(1) The proposals require that cash awards be given to
employees based on their performance ratings. For the following reasons, we
find that the proposals are negotiable. II. Proposals Proposal 2 2. Performance awards will be cash and based on the
employee's rating of record. Proposal 3 3. Employees rated superior or excellent will be
recognized; fully successful will be recognized with a 1% performance award
provided the employee exceeded at least one critical element of the
performance plan. Proposal 5 5. The following range of cash performance awards will
be issued to unit employees: a. A fully successful rating that exceeds at least
one critical element of the performance plan will receive 1%. b. An excellent rating will receive from 1 1/2% - 2
1/2%. c. A superior rating will receive from 3% -
5%. A. Positions of the Parties The Agency contends that the proposals are nonnegotiable
under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute because they are inconsistent with law
and Government-wide regulation. In particular, the Agency argues that the
proposals are inconsistent with the following provisions of law and
Government-wide regulations: (1) 5 U.S.C. § 4302, 5 C.F.R. §§
430.203, 430.204, and 430.206(b), because the proposals require the Agency to
consider funding limitations in the performance rating process; (2) 5
C.F.R. §§ 430.503(c)(1), (f) and 430.506(a), because the proposals prevent
the Agency from considering the availability of funds in its review of
performance awards; and (3) 5 C.F.R. § 430.503, because the proposals
would prevent the Agency from conducting an internal review of performance
awards. Finally, the Agency asserts that National Treasury Employees Union,
Chapter 245 and Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, 30
FLRA 1219 (1988) (Proposal 1), which is relied on by the Union, is not
applicable because it does not address the issues raised in this
case. The Union contends that the proposals are consistent with
Subpart E of chapter 430 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations entitled
"Performance Awards." The Union also argues that the proposals are procedures
by which the Agency will grant performance awards. Finally, relying on the
Authority's decision in Patent and Trademark Office, the Union argues
that the proposals are negotiable because they do not interfere with the
Agency's right to establish the performance standards which employees must meet
in order to be entitled to a cash award. B. Discussion The disputed proposals would: (1) require the Agency to
grant cash performance awards based solely on an employee's performance rating;
and (2) establish the amount of an individual award by specifying the
percentage of an employee's salary, including a range of percentages for
excellent or superior ratings, which constitutes the award. Under the
proposals, employees must be given a cash award if they receive a performance
rating of outstanding, superior, or fully successful, provided that they exceed
at least one critical element of the performance plan. We find that the proposals are negotiable. 1. Whether the Proposals are Inconsistent with
Law--5 U.S.C. § 4302--and Government-wide Regulations--5
C.F.R. §§ 430.203, 430.204, and 430.206(b) Performance ratings must be based solely on performance
standards which permit the accurate evaluation of an employee's job
performance. 5 U.S.C. § 4302; 5 C.F.R. §§ 430.203, 430.204,
430.206(b).(2) The Agency claims that it has a limited performance
awards budget. The Agency argues that in order to comply with the mandatory
awards required by the proposals and still keep performance awards within its
budget, performance ratings must be based on consideration of funding
limitations as well as performance standards. Agency Statement of Position at
7-8. The Agency contends, therefore, that the proposals are inconsistent with
law and regulation because they would require management to base performance
ratings on funding considerations and employee performance, rather than on
employee performance alone. Contrary to the Agency's argument, the proposals do not
require that employee performance ratings be based on anything other than
employee performance. The proposals concern the procedures for granting awards,
not the procedures for determining employee performance ratings. The proposals take effect only after the rating procedures
have been completed. Therefore, the proposals would not preclude management
from conducting employee appraisals as required by law and regulation.
Moreover, as discussed below, governing regulations provide a separate
procedure for reviewing budgetary limitations and, therefore, there is no need
for budgetary considerations to affect the rating process. We conclude,
therefore, that the proposals are not inconsistent with legal and regulatory
requirements that employee performance appraisals be based solely on employee
performance. 2. Whether the Proposals are Inconsistent with
Government-wide Regulations--5 C.F.R. §§ 430.503(c)(1),
430.503(f) and 430.506(a) The regulations cited by the Agency: (1) require agencies
to establish procedures for the review of performance awards by an official
with responsibility for managing the performance awards budget (5 C.F.R.
§ 430.503(c)(1)); (2) encourage agencies, within existing appropriated funds, to
establish and administer performance awards and programs (5 C.F.R. § 430.503(f)); and (3) require the head of each agency, within existing
appropriated funds, to establish a performance awards program as a component of
an agency's Performance Management System (5 C.F.R. § 430.506(a)).(3) In short, these regulations require an agency to
establish a performance awards program which includes procedures for reviewing
performance awards so as to ensure that the program is administered within
existing appropriated funds. The Agency contends that under the proposals, the
decision to give an employee a rating of fully successful, excellent, or
superior is also a decision to grant that employee a performance award.
Therefore, the Agency argues that the proposals prevent it from reviewing
awards, as required by the regulations, to determine whether there are funds
available for the awards. The Agency argues that the proposals are inconsistent
with 5 C.F.R. § 430.503(c)(1) for an additional reason. The Agency
interprets 5 C.F.R. § 430.503(c)(1) as providing for "a distinct separate
review [from] the review required by 5 C.F.R. 430.206(c) of performance ratings
of record." Agency Statement of Position at 12. According to the Agency, the
proposals render the review process required by 5 C.F.R. § 430.503(c)(1)
meaningless because the rating decision is also a decision to grant a
performance award. Contrary to the Agency's argument, the proposals would
not prevent management from reviewing the performance awards required by the
proposals for consistency with applicable budgetary limitations. Nothing in the
plain wording of the proposals would prohibit the Agency from reviewing
performance awards to determine whether the awards are consistent with its
awards budget. Further, except for awards for fully successful ratings, which
under the proposal must constitute 1 percent of an employee's salary, the
proposals establish a range of percentages of employee salaries within which
the awards must fall. The Agency may adjust awards within the ranges
established in the proposals in order to ensure that the awards remain within
limitations established by existing appropriated funds. Finally, the Agency
does not argue, and it is not otherwise apparent, that management is precluded
by law or regulation from reallocating funds to increase the amount available
in its awards budget to comply with the proposals should that be
necessary. We conclude, therefore, that the proposals are not
inconsistent with the requirements of applicable regulations. We also conclude,
contrary to the Agency's argument, that our decision in Patent and Trademark
Office, 30 FLRA 1219, is directly applicable to this case. Not only did we
find generally in Patent and Trademark Office that the amount of
performance awards is negotiable, but we specifically concluded that proposals
prescribing the amount of such awards did not preclude the review procedures
required by 5 C.F.R. § 430.503(c). III. Order The Agency must upon request, or as otherwise agreed to
by the parties, bargain on Proposals 2, 3 and 5.(4) Issued, Washington, D.C., ______________________________Jerry L. Calhoun,
AUTHORITY APPENDIX 5 U.S.C. § 4302 provides: § 4302. Establishment of performance appraisal
systems (a) Each agency shall develop one or more performance appraisal
systems which-- (1) provide for periodic appraisals of job performance
of employees; (2) encourage employee participation in establishing
performance standards; and (3) use the results of performance appraisals as
a basis for training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade,
retaining, and removing employees[.} [Footnote
omitted.] (b) Under regulations which the Office of Personnel
Management shall prescribe, each performance appraisal system shall provide
for-- (1) establishing performance standards which will, to
the maximum extent feasible, permit the accurate evaluation of job performance
on the basis of objective criteria (which may include the extent of courtesy
demonstrated to the public) related to the job in question for each employee or
position under the system; (2) as soon as practicable, but not later than
October 1, 1981, with respect to initial appraisal periods, and thereafter at
beginning of each following appraisal period, the communicating to each
employee the performance standards and critical elements of the employee's
position;(3) evaluating each employee during the appraisal period on such
standards; (4) recognizing and rewarding employees whose performance so
warrants; (5) assisting employees in improving unacceptable performance; and
(6) reassigning, reducing in grade, or removing employees who continue to have
unacceptable performance but only after an opportunity to demonstrate
acceptable performance. 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 provides: § 430.203
Definitions. In this subpart, terms are defined as
follows-- "Appraisal" means the act or process of reviewing and
evaluating the performance of an employee against the described performance
standard(s). "Appraisal period" means the period of time established by an
appraisal system for which an employee's performance will be reviewed.
"Appraisal system" means a performance appraisal system established by an
agency or component of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 43 of title 5,
U.S.C. and this subpart which provides for identification of critical and
non-critical elements, establishment of performance standards, communication of
elements and standards to employees, establishment of methods and procedures to
appraise performance against established standards, and appropriate use of
appraisal information in making personnel decisions. "Critical element"
means a component of a position consisting of one or more duties and
responsibilities which contributes toward accomplishing organizational goals
and objectives and which is of such importance that unacceptable performance on
the element would result in unacceptable performance in the
position. "Non-critical element" means a component of an employee's
position which does not meet the finition of a critical element, but is of
optional and may be used at agency discretion. "Performance" means an
employee's accomplishment of assigned work as specified in the critical and
non-critical elements of the employee's position."Performance Appraisal
System": see Appraisal system. "Performance Management Plan" means the
description of the agency's methods which integrate performance, pay, and
awards systems with its basic management functions for the purpose of improving
individual and organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency
mission and goals. The Performance Management Plan, which includes the
performance appraisal plan, must be submitted to OPM for review and approval as
required by Subpart A of this part."Performance plan" means the aggregation
of all of an employee's written critical and non-critical elements and
performance standard(s). "Performance standard" means a statement of the
expectations or requirements established by management for a critical or
non-critical element at a particular rating level. A performance standard may
include, but is not limited to, factors such as quality, quantity, timeliness,
and manner of performance. "Progress review" means a review of the
employee's progress toward achieving the performance standards and is not in
itself a rating. "Rating": see Summary rating."Rating of record" means
the summary rating required at the time specified in the Performance Management
Plan or at such other times as the Plan specifies for special
circumstances. "Summary rating" means the written record of the appraisal
of each critical and non-critical element and the assignment of a summary
rating level (as specified in § 430.204(g) and (h) of this
subpart). 5 C.F.R. § 430.204 provides: § 430.204 Agency performance appraisal
systems. (a) Each agency shall develop one or more performance
appraisal systems for employees covered by this subpart. (b) Under each
appraisal system, critical elements must be included and non-critical elements
may be included in individual performance plans. An employee must be appraised
on each critical and non-critical element in the employee's performance plan,
unless the employee has had insufficient opportunity to demonstrate performance
on the element. A summary rating level, as specified in paragraph (h) of this
section, must be assigned. (c) Each appraisal system shall encourage
employee participation in establishing performance plans. This may be
accomplished by means including, but not limited to, the following: (1)
Employee and supervisor discuss and develop performance plan together; (2)
Employee provides to supervisor a draft performance plan; (3) Employee
comments on draft performance plan prepared by supervisor; and (4)
Performance plan is prepared by a group of employees occupying similar
positions, with supervisor's approval.
Final authority for establishing such plan rests with
the supervising officials. (d) (1) Each appraisal system shall provide for
establishing performance elements and standards based on the requirements of
the employee's positions, providing written performance plans to employees at
the beginning of each appraisal period (normally within 30 days), and
appraising employees based on a comparison of performance with the standards
established for the appraisal period. (2) Accomplishment of organizational
objectives should, when appropriate, be included in performance plans by
incorporating objectives, goals, program plans, work plans, or by other similar
means that account for program results.(e) Each appraisal system shall
provide for a minimum of three rating levels for each critical element.
Performance standards must be written at the "Fully Successful" level for all
critical and non-critical elements and may be written at other levels. The
absence of a written standard at a given rating level shall not preclude the
assignment of a rating at that level. (f) Each appraisal system shall
provide that performance plans shall be in writing and shall be reviewed and
approved at the beginning of the appraisal period by a person at a higher level
in the organization than that of the appraising official. Agencies may describe
exceptions to higher level review and approval of performance plans in their
Performance Management Plans.(g) Each appraisal system shall include a
method for deriving a summary rating level from performance appraisals of
critical elements and, at agency discretion, appraisals of non-critical
elements. If appraisals of non-critical elements are considered in deriving
summary rating levels, the derivation method must show that more weight will be
given to critical elements than non-critical elements. (h) Each appraisal
system shall provide for five summary rating levels. The rating levels must
include an "Unacceptable" level, a level between "Unacceptable" and "Fully
Successful," a "Fully Successful" level, and two levels which are above"Fully
Successful." For purposes of this part,"Unacceptable" is referred to as level
1, the level between "Unacceptable" and "Fully Successful" is level 2, "Fully
Successful" is level 3, the level one level above "Fully Successful" is level
4, and the level two levels above "Fully Successful" is level 5. (i) Each
appraisal system shall provide for assisting employees in improving performance
rated at a level below the "Fully Successful" level.Such assistance may include
but is not limited to formal training, on-the-job training, counseling, and
closer supervision.(j) Except with respect to employees occupying positions
in Schedule C as authorized by § 213.3301 of this chapter-- (1) Each
appraisal system shall provide for reassigning, reducing in grade, or removing
any employee whose performance is "Unacceptable," but only after affording the
employee a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance, as
required by 5 U.S.C. 4302(b)(6). (2) At the time that an agency identifies
the critical element(s) for which performance is "Unacceptable," the employee
must be informed of the performance standards that must be reached in order to
be retained. (3) If, at the conclusion of the opportunity period referred
to in paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the employee's performance continued to
be "Unacceptable," the agency must initiate reassignment, reduction in grade,
or removal, subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4303. (k) When an
employee's position under any Federal pay system is converted to a pay system
covered by this subpart, and when there is no change of duties and
responsibilities, the employee's rating of record will be considered to have
been derived under 5 U.S.C. 4302 and from the position which the employee now
5 C.F.R. § 430.206(b) provides: § 430.206 Ratings . . . . . . . (b). Appraisal of each critical and non-critical
element. Employees must be appraised on each critical element and
non-critical element of the performance plan(s) on which the employee has had a
chance to perform. 5 C.F.R. § 430.503(c)(1) and (f) provide: § 430.503 Policy. (c)(1) Agency procedures for making performance awards
determinations must include a requirement for review and approval of each
determination by an official of the agency who is at a higher level than the
official who made the initial decision, unless there is no official at a higher
level inthe agency, and also by the official(s) with responsibility for
managing the performance awards budget within the agency. . . . . . . . (f) OPM encourages agencies to make maximum use of
their authorities under chapters 43 and 45 of title 5, United States Code,
within existing appropriated funds to establish and administer performance
awards programs that best support and enhance agency and national goals and
meet employee recognition needs. 5. C.F.R. § 430.506(a) provides: § 430.506 Agency
responsibilites. (a) The head of each agency shall, within existing
appropriated funds, establish a performance awards program as a component of
the Performance Management System. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. The Union's petition for
review contained five proposals. The Agency states that it does not contest
the negotiability of Proposals 1 and 4. Agency Statement of Position at
2. Those proposals will not be considered in this decision. 2. The text of the cited law and Government-wide
regulations is contained in the Appendix to this decision. 3. The text of 5 C.F.R. §§ 430.503(c)(1),
430.503(f) and 430.506(a) is contained in the Appendix to this decision. 4. In finding that Proposals 2, 3 and 5 are within the