Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

Mr. Riley declared that the sense of today's forum established that— 1. There is a need for efficiency ratings.

2. There is need for better informed supervision.

3. There is need for extension of the system's appeals mechanism. Mr. Riley stated that he felt there is a need for advice from a cross section of employee unions, veterans' organizations, and Government departments and that he is appointing the following men to serve as an advisory board to the staff of the Senate Civil Service Committee:

Mr. William C. Armbrust, United National Association of Post Office Clerks.
Mr. Ray E. Ballinger, General Accounting Office.

Mr. James B. Burns, American Federation of Government Employees.
Mr. Hugh H. Clegg, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Parmely C. Daniels, Federal Personnel Council.

Mr. William C. Doherty, vice president, A. F. L.; president, National Association of Letter Carriers.

Mr. Henry A. Donovan, Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Gustav C. Hertz, Veterans' Administration.

Dr. Henry F. Hubbard, Federal Personnel Council.

Mr. Rosel H. Hyde, Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. Joseph A. Jordan, Treasury Department.

Mr. Omar B. Ketchum, Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Commander Edward D. Killian, Navy Department.

Mr. Drexel Knight, United States Maritime Commission.
Mr. Robert E. McLaughlin, AMVETS.

Mr. Donald Murray, United Public Workers of America.

Col. A. H. Onthank, War Department.

Mr. John A. Overholt, Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Foster J. Pratt, president, International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Unions, A. F. L.

Mr. Millard Rice, Disabled American Veterans.

Mr. Luther C. Steward, National Federation of Federal Employees.

Mr. Francis M. Sullivan, American Legion.

Mr. Donald C. Stone, Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. Riley designated John A. Overholt, chairman, and Drexel Knight, executive secretary of the advisory board.

He suggested that the board meet some time soon and make a recommendation to the staff based on today's hearing. He stated that he would pass the recommendation on to the Senate Committee on Civil Service.

He thanked those who helped with organizing today's hearing and all who participated in the discussions.

A brief open forum was held.

Mr. Overholt adjourned the hearing at 2:20 p. m.
Prepared by:

(S) DREXEL KNIGHT,

Executive Secretary.

APPENDIX C

UNIFORM EFFICIENCY RATING SYSTEM

The uniform efficiency rating system has been devised by the Civil Service Commission (with the cooperation of the Federal agencies through the Federal Personnel Council) under the authority of the Classification Act and applies to all Federal employees occupying positions paid under the compensation schedules of the Classification Act.

Ratings are prepared initially by the immediate supervisor, reviewed by higher supervisors, and reviewed and approved by an efficiency rating committee which exercises the authority of the head of the agency. Regular efficiency ratings are made on a standard form which contains 20 factors that are applicable to nonsupervisory positions and 11 factors that are available for administrative, planning, and supervisory positions. Only those factors which pertain to the position of the employee are used for the appraisal of that employee's work performance. In a few experiments now being conducted with the approval of the Civil Service Commission, the vork operations or the duties of the position are used instead of the factors listed on the rating form.

After the appropriate factors are selected for a particular position, the especially important ones are shown by underlining. Then a symbol is placed in front of each pertinent factor indicating whether the employee's performance has (v) met, (+) exceeded, or (-) failed to measure up to job requirements, On the basis of these evaluations, a final adjective rating is assigned.

Five adjective ratings are provided: "Excellent," "Very good," "Good," "Fair," and "Unsatisfactory." Each employee is notified of the particular adjective rating assigned by means of a standard form which tells the significance and meaning of the rating and what initial step he may take if he is not satisfied that the rating is correct. Under the uniform plan, the employee has the right to see his own rating form, to know the ratings of other employees of his agency, and to appeal his rating to a board of review,

Up to January 15, 1948, three types of ratings were provided: "Regular," "Probational," and "Special." Regular ratings were to be made as of March 31 of each year, probational ratings at the end of the tenth month of the probational period and special ratings when there was no current appropriate rating on record and one was needed for within-grade salary advancement or reduction in force. After the cessation of hostilities, when the size of the Government service was being reduced rapidly, a great many special ratings were made which were based on short periods of service. Consideration of this problem by the Advisory Council and other groups resulted in a change in the uniform efficiency rating system which eliminated special ratings. Effective January 15, 1948, the system provides for two types of ratings: "Entrance" and "Regular." The first, "Entrance," is given when an employee is appointed or changes his position. The second, "Regular,' is assigned when the employee has been in his position for 6 months, and annually thereafter on March 31 or in accordance with an agency plan approved by the Civil Service Commission which might provide a different date or anniversary ratings for individual employees.

Another of the recent revisions of the uniform system incorporates as a principle the statement that ratings of "Fair" or "Unsatisfactory" should not be assigned unless the employee was given a warning 3 to 6 months prior to the rating, specifically informed him (a) how his performance fails to meet requirements, (b) how he may improve his performance, (c) that he has the opportunity to bring about such improvement, and (d) that he will receive a “Fair" or "Unsatisfactory" rating if his performance does not improve to meet required standards.

All actions of separation, demotion, or reduction in salary based on efficiency ratings prepared in accordance with the uniform system must be approved by the Civil Service Commission. This approval is given only if the employee is given a written notice, at least 30 calendar days in advance of the proposed effective date of the proposed action, stating (1) specifically what the performance requirements of his position are and how he failed to meet these performance requirements; (2) the nature and date of the proposed action, and in any case of reduction in pay, the grade and title of the position and the new salary rate; and (3) that he may make a written reply to the agency within a specified period which shall be not less than one calendar week from the date of receipt of the notice, stating why the action should not be taken. The agency is required to consider the employee's answer and make such changes and adjustments in the efficiency rating and in the action resulting therefrom as are deemed appropriate. In the case of a veteran, the approval is subject to any appeal by the employee under section 14 of the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. If the employee has appealed his efficiency rating to a board of review, approval is subject to the board's decision on the merits of the rating.

Further details regarding the uniform efficiency rating system are given below in this appendix.

APPENDIX D

WAR DEPARTMENT UNGRADED EFFICIENCY RATING SYSTEM

The efficiency rating system for War Department ungraded employees was approved by the Civil Service Commission in accordance with the provisions of the act of July 31, 1946 (60 Stat. 751).

Under this system, ungraded employees receive a regular efficiency rating each 6 months, March 31 and September 30 of each year. The rating is prepared by the immediate supervisor and reviewed by the next supervisor above the rater. The civilian personnel officer has general responsibility for administration of the

system and either he or his designated representative is responsible for final approval of ungraded efficiency ratings.

The

The rater prepares a tentative rating for each employee under him. tentative rating is discussed first with the reviewer and then with the employee. The rating is examined again by the reviewer. If he disagrees with the evaluation or adjective rating he makes notation of his disagreement on the rating form but does not change the markings or adjective rating entered by the rater. All ratings are forwarded to the civilian personnel officer for final review.

The civilian personnel officer must approve all ungraded ratings before they become official. This system of review and discussion is supplemented by an appeals procedure which permits any employee to appeal an official rating that he thinks is unfair or inaccurate. His appeal must be made to the local efficiency rating committee within 30 days from the time he receives notification of his official rating. If the employee is not satisfied with the decision of the local efficiency rating committee, he may appeal to the War Department efficiency rating board of review within 30 days from receipt, in writing, of the local efficiency rating committee's decision.

There are two types of official ratings: "Regular" and "Special." "Regular" ratings are prepared semiannually as of March 31 and September 30 for all ungraded employees who have occupied their current positions under the same supervisor for a minimum of 30 days. A "Special" rating is prepared when there is no current "Regular" rating on record for an ungraded employee and one is needed for reduction in force purposes. A "Regular" or "Special" rating remains an "official rating of record" from the date on which it is recorded by civilian personnel office until superseded by another regular rating, or until there is a change of work assignment of the employee involving a change of duties. In addition to the regular and special official ratings, administrative unofficial ratings may be prepared as frequently as desired. They are not recorded, do not become a part of an employee's record, and cannot be appealed.

All ungraded jobs are divided into three groups for efficiency rating purposes. The rating groups are: Group A, semiskilled or unskilled; group B, skilled; and group C, foreman or supervisory. Fifteen elements (basic job factors) stated as questions are listed on the rating form. However, only nine of the elements are used in rating an employee. The rating elements to be used in each rating group are: Group A, elements 1 to 9, inclusive; group B, elements 3 to 11, inclusive; and group C, elements 7 to 15, inclusive. Under each element there are descriptions of three levels of work performance. The first description under an element represents superior performance; the second, standard performance, and the third, weak performance. The rater checks the one statement which describes most accurately the employee's performance on that particular element. In determining which level of work performance to check for each of the nine elements used, the supervisor evaluates the employee's actual work performance against the standards of performance for his job. The performance standards for each job represents performance which can reasonably be expected from a competent, trained employee. The element ratings are then converted to an adjective rating of "excellent," "very good," "good," "fair," or "unsatisfactory" by comparing the element ratings with a conversion table.

While the rules which govern the system do not make penalty actions mandatory, the penalty actions prescribed by the uniform efficiency rating system for graded employees may be applied. Under those rules, an employee whose performance is determined to be unsatisfactory in his present job must be reassigned or removed and an employee whose efficiency rating is "Fair" must be reduced one within-grade salary step provided he is in step 4 or 5 of the grade. These administrative provisions have been accepted by the Army Air Forces and are planned for uniform application throughout the Department. The complete War Department ungraded efficiency rating system is presented below.

APPENDIX E

NAVY DEPARTMENT SHOP EFFICIENCY RATING SYSTEM

The Navy Department shop efficiency rating system was established, effective June 30, 1945, for the purpose of rating the efficiency of the approximately 500,000 ungraded employees of the Navy, the supervisory and nonsupervisory employees in trades and crafts engaged in productive and maintenance work at shipyards, stations, depots, and other shore establishments operated by the Navy. The

system remains basically unchanged although revised and amended to meet changing requirements of law and regulation. It was approved by the Civil Service Commission in accordance with the provisions of the act of July 31, 1946 (60 Stat. 751).

Rating forms have been developed describing a "Standard" or "Good" level of performance and also describing performance at levels above and below the standard level. Two forms were developed, one for rating the nonsupervisory employees, i. e., the laborers, helpers, and journeymen comprising the I, II, and III groups, and the other for rating the supervisory mechanics comprising the group IVa employees. Ratings under the shop system were first made on a numerical basis, but by revision I of the rating instruction (Navy Civilian Personnel Instruction 56), dated November 19, 1945 adjective ratings were established in place of numerical ratings and the rating forms revised accordingly.

Efficiency ratings under the shop system are prepared on a semiannual basis on whatever dates best meet the needs of the activity preparing the ratings. These activities are further permitted the staggering of the semiannual rating dates according to the needs of the departments or units of the activity. Ratings so made are official regular ratings.

The system provided also for the making of "Special," "Trial Period," and "Informational" ratings in a manner similar to that prevailing under the uniform system. Activities were encouraged to prepare interim unofficial ratings with the view of giving the supervisor a continuing opportunity to observe and record the employee's performance in order that the official rating would more accurately show the true worth of the services rendered by the employee. Effective January 15, 1948, the making of "Official Special" ratings was discontinued and "Entrance" ratings made effective. An "Entrance" rating is given each new employee upon his initial appointment and "Entrance" ratings based on the last official rating are made when an employee changes his line or level of work. "Entrance' ratings remain effective for a 3-month's period, after which a "Regular" rating is made. This latter rating remains effective until superseded by the official regular semiannual rating.

Although the shop system encouraged supervisors to advise and assist employees who are in danger of receiving ratings below "Good" to improve their performance in sufficient time to enable the proper giving of a rating of "Good" or better, this has been a mandatory requirement since January 15, 1948. Before an efficiency rating of less than "Good" is made, the employee must receive an oral warning at least a month and not more than 4 months before the close of the rating period. Written evidence of the warning and of the employee's understanding of the warning is also required.

The rating forms used in the shop system provide space for the supervisor to offer such comment as he may deem pertinent on the employee's work. The forms also provide space for recording the discussion of the rating with the employee. In the shop system, as in the uniform system, the immediate supervisor who controls and is responsible for the employee's work is the rater. The reviewer is the next higher supervisor who verifies the accuracy of the rating. The rating is then passed through the higher levels of supervision to the central review board where it is further reviewed and, if found correct, approved. At any time during the reviewing process the rating may be corrected, providing the validity of the correction is established and the rater is informed of the action. Upon approval by the central review board the rating becomes official and appropriate for use. Normally the rating is discussed with the employee after approval by the initial reviewer, and appropriate entry is made in the space provided on the form for the discussion before the rating is forwarded to the central review board for its approval action. The rating form describes excellent, good, reasonably satisfactory, and unsatisfactory levels of performance in terms familiar to the average mechanic or laborer. Four rating factors are used, viz, knowledge of work, quantity of work, quality of work and adaptability, for group I, II, and III employees, and use of supervisory and occupational knowledge, effectiveness in getting work done, effectiveness in obtaining high quality work, and personal characteristics shown on the job, for group IVa employees. The levels of performance mentioned above appear under columnar headings of A, B, C, and D and a conversion table is used to determine the correct adjective rating. Five adjective ratings have been provided: "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Reasonably Satisfactory" and "Unsatisfactory."

As mentioned above, the employee receives written notice of his rating on a form which, in addition to informing him of his adjective rating, defines and explains the meaning of "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Reasonably Satisfactory," and "Unsatisfactory" ratings. The notice advises the employee of his

right to examine his rating and discuss it with his supervisor as well as of his right to appeal the rating within 15 days if he is dissatisfied with his rating.

Forms are provided for the use of the employee in appealing his rating. Appeal is first made to the central review board where an oral, fact-finding hearing is conducted. The appellant has the right to a representative of his own choosing, either within or without the Government service, and to call upon such 'witnesses as may have factual information to offer in the matter. The appeal board is charged by the instruction to fully develop the information necessary to a correct decision on the appeal, based on the merits of the apellant's demonstrated work performance during the period covered by the appealed rating.

Should the appellant be dissatisfied with the decision of the central review board on his appeal, he has the right of further appeal to the Navy Department shop efficiency rating appeal board. While employees generally have knowledge of this right of further appeal, the form used by the central review board in notifying the appellant of its decision also notifies him of his right of further appeal. A 15-day time limit is established for the making of this further appeal. The forms provided for use in appealing to the Navy Department board list specific items of information required by the board to adjudicate the appeal on the merits of the work performance under consideration. Inasmuch as the appeals as submitted are usually complete, a substantial saving of time is effected. The appellant as well as the activity originating the appeal are furnished copies of the board's decision, which is final and binding upon all parties.

Rating instructions (NCPI 56, Rev. I, and amendments) together with copies. of all forms used in the rating and appeal procedures are presented below.

APPENDIX F

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICES EFFICIENCY RATING SYSTEMS

There are five different efficiency rating systems in operation in the field services of the Post Office Department. One is used in the post office inspection service for post-office inspectors, post-office inspectors in charge of field divisions and assistant inspectors in charge, and clerks in the offices of inspectors and inspectors in charge. Another is used for the railway mail service in the Bureau of the Second Assistant Postmaster General. The third is prescribed for employees in the motor vehicle service. The fourth is used in the postal service for supervisors,. post-office clerks and rural carriers at first- and second-class offices, city and village delivery carriers, special delivery messengers at first-class offices, and mail handlers. The fifth applies to the custodial service.

Although three different forms are used in the system for the Post Office Inspection Service, the same general method is followed in determining the final rating. A number of elements are listed and the rater determines the numerical value that should be placed in blocks connected with the elements-Unsatisfactory, 1; Passable, 2 or 3; Satisfactory, 4 or 5; Superior, 6 or 7. These numbers are averaged and converted to an adjective rating by the following table: 1.00 to 1.99, Unsatisfactory; 2.00 to 3.99, Passable; 4.00 and 5.99, Satisfactory; and 6.00 to 7.00, Superior. Ratings are made by the local official in charge but are not binding until approved by the chief of the bureau. Each employee receives a copy of his completed rating form and may appeal it successively to the chief of the bureau and to the Postmaster General.

The railway mail service system has two parts: a service rating report (Form No. 5140) and a merit and demerit system referred to as the service rating system. The service rating report is a graphic rating scale on which employees are rated in 1 of 5 gradations on 21 separate elements. Each level has two numerical values, one is totaled for the numerical rating in the job and the other is totaled for the numerical rating when the employee is being considered for advancement to a supervisory position. The merit and demerit system is based on a definite schedule. Demerits are appealable through the medium of the established grievance procedure.

A final efficiency rating in the motor vehicle service is based on the evaluation of performance on certain rating factors augmented or decreased by merits and demerits. Seven factors are listed on a 31⁄2- by 8-inch form. These factors have different numerical weights for different jobs. Also some factors are not used for certain jobs. The total maximum rating that any one employee can achieve is 100 percent, which is considered perfect. A rating of 95 percent is considered satisfactory, and is the maximum to be given an employee for performing his

« AnteriorContinuar »