Go back to the
SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
Several questions submitted to management at the May 18 forum on the proposed layoff policy show concern about how skills, knowledge, and abilities (SKAs) will be determined in a layoff unit. In a subsequent Newslin item, management assured us that "multiple levels of review" would safeguard individuals from management's whims, and assure objective determination of SKAs. Two actual case histories, both involving multiple levels of review of performance appraisals show these assurancees to be less than worthless. Both employees tried to use the system of internal review. Far from obtaining redress, both individuals wound up suffering greater hardships. The temerity to question management's original judgment did not go unpunished!
Case #1:
X, a matrixed employee, headed a project that won
a significant award. Peers and clients throughout the Lab regularly seek
his advice and services. However, he suggested to his host organization
that circumventing the matrix system would significantly reduce the cost
of his services. This enraged the management of the host organization, who
requested that X be replaced.
X's subsequent performance appraisal duly noted
the incident, and it insinuated that he was capable of doing only jobs that
were set up for him and lacked the creativity to generate new work. He received
a lower rating than in previous years.
X requested an administrative review. At the department
level, the language of the appraisal was refined somewhat, but the insinuation
remained, couched in veiled terms, and the rating was unchanged. In the
subsequent appeal to the Director's Office, everyone involved in the matrix
incident blasted X with unrelated, unsupported, and transparently false
accusations. However, the accusations were unchallenged by the reviewer
and undisclosed to X until the Director's signature made the review final.
X was downgraded to his organization's next-to-bottom ranking group.
Case #2:
Employee Y invented ways to clean up pollution
in federal installations and commercial sites. In fact, he shared a patent
and the credit for several potential systems of interest to the government,
as well as to commercial enterprises, and published several papers on environmental
restoration. However, because of a personal dispute, his management impounded
his funds and refused him permission to attend off-site meetings that were
crucial to the success of LLNL proposals to implement his ideas. As a result,
the work was given to competitors.
Y's management then set him up for failure by assigning
him work that was out of his area of expertise and gave him a poor performance
appraisal when he failed to progress in his assigned duties. He was downgraded
precipitously to his organization's next-to-bottom ranking group and subsequently
received a $35 salary adjustment.
In upholding the performance appraisal and salary
adjustment, the reviewer found no evidence of punitive intent by Y's management
in assigning Y tasks for which he was mismatched and was subsequently unsuccessful
in completing. The reviewer also dismissed the mismatched assignment as
"secondary" to Y's grievance regarding the minuscule salary increase,
although Y's failure in the assignment was the primary negative in the appraisal
and was the principal reason for his downgrading.
Under the proposed layoff policy, management will *not* be accountable. A person's ranking for layoff will be whatever management says it is. Don't let it happen to you! Alone you are powerless. Together we can demand independent and unbiased review of alleged unfairness, without reprisals! Sign an authorization card to bring about a vote that will empower employees.
What is an Authorization Card?
July 1995
Go back to the
SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/