Oct. 7, 2003

No protection for employees at performance appraisal time

This is the time of year we receive our performance appraisals and associated raises. It has been stated recently that it is "nearly impossible" to fire a University of California employee for "sub-par" performance. As a matter of fact, managers have used and can still use AM 109, Performance Management, to retaliate against employees. All a manager must do is give an employee an ORC score of "1" for the performance half for failing to meet the manager's expectations, then place that employee under a Performance Action Track (PAT) using any kind of criteria of their choosing.

At the end of that assessment period, it is solely the manager's discretion as to whichever item they wish to choose to say the employee did not meet on the PAT and out the door [the employee goes] with only five days pay. An exempt employee who works more than 40 hours per week but is 15 minutes late coming in in the mornings – you're terminated or perhaps, given another "chance" under another PAT. Or a manager may choose to list performance deficiencies that had never been brought up with the employee, or the manager may use events that occurred before the PAT began - the list goes on. No investigative board is convened such as the one mandated by AM 112, Disciplinary. No manager in the line of command will reverse the group leader's ruling. The employee's only recourse is the interminably long grievance process. And forget getting back on at the Laboratory. This is a closed community no matter what the termination letter says.

There are many AMs under which an employee may be terminated. AM 112 is the only AM that specifies an investigative board must be convened. In that case, a board of people, not just a single manager, reviews any proposed, severe consequences. Many of the ways in which an employee may be terminated are listed in AM 113, Terminations, but not all are listed here. Two that come to mind that are missing are AM 326 and AM 903. It is not possible to conduct a search online through all the AMs to see where the consequence of termination can be applied. It is obvious, however, that this consequence has been used and that employees are threatened with that consequence today.

I mistakenly thought as an employee that any time an employee's conduct was such to merit termination that it would fall under AM 112 and the investigative board would at least review the facts at hand. However, this is not the case. I also thought PATs were strictly written and expectations clearly defined (if report time is to be "to-the-minute" then it should state that). This, also, is not the case.

Why don't more managers fire employees? I suspect it's the time involved on their part, or that the majority reserve that option for when it's absolutely necessary, but it's certainly not because it's "nearly impossible."

I agree we need to work together as a team and not "us" versus "them," but it's a difficult bridge to cross. An employee's protection seems to stem solely from their trust and relationship with their group leader. Upon that entity resides all hope and faith in their future at the Laboratory. The union as additional employee protection can only look promising.

--Tina M. Forsman