Steve Keller, NTEU Chief Negotiator, conducted a conference call with stewards on February 2, 2006, to discuss the Pay-for-Performance (PFP) under the new agreement. Below are some of the highlights of that call:
q The PFP is a process where the employee participates, which is a departure from the old CSA that was conducted without the employee’s involvement. It is up to everyone to make the process equitable and fair.
q The PFP period for 2006 performance will be shifted to a calendar-year basis. The 2005 performance period is a transition year and the pay increases will not be effective until pay period four and should be reflected in the pay period seven pay stub. This is due to the time necessary for management to complete the evaluation and placement process.
q Employees are encouraged to submit an accomplishment report. This report should be in a positive and professional tone and where possible, include instances that tie back to your position description (PD). It was recommended that report should be in form similar to a resume and it should include any “buzz” words that tie to the employee’s PD.
q Employees should be provided with a reasonable amount of administrative time to complete their accomplishment report.
q Employees should ask their supervisors what is the definition (standard) of various categories in the scoring section of the PEP. Although I would not expect precise definitions, the employee should have an idea what it takes to get a 2, 3, 4, or 5 in a rated area. This can be particularly helpful in gathering information for the next accomplishment report.
q The scoring and the corporate contribution areas are not weighted. Management insisted on flexibility in determining what group the employee was placed and was concerned that too much reliance on the scoring section would create “scoring inflation” over the term of the contract.
q There will not be a cumulative or average score. The scores are intended to be indicators of an employee’s performance.
q The narrative portion of the PFP for is limited for both the rating official and employee. All PFPs should include supervisor’s narrative because these comments will aid decision officials in the placement of employees into groups. If an area of the corporate contribution section is checked, there should be comments in the narrative portion of the form.
q Employees should only comment if they disagree with the scores or comments in the PFP.
q The employee’s comments should be professional and positive in content and tone and not argumentative or confrontational (keep in mind that these PEP forms are reviewed by a number of senior managers).
q Supervisors can deliver the PFP form via email, but the employee should feel free to meet with their supervisor. The meeting does not have to be face-to-face.
q Once the process is completed, the employee will be notified by FDIC-HR via email of which group they were placed.