Tags: attorney, employee, employment, enacted, evaluation, labor, law, lawyer, legal, legislature, maryland, offi, performancequot, quotpay, state, ticked, unfair

Unfair Evaluation

On Lawyer & Legal » Employment & Labor Law

3,708 words with 2 Comments; publish: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 22:43:00 GMT; (80062.50, « »)

Ticked Off:

I am a state employee for the state of Maryland.

Two years ago the Maryland Legislature enacted a "Pay for Performance" evaluation system.

Specifically, those employees rated at "Outstanding" or "Exceeds Requirements"

on an overall performance evaluation system

were then given "monetary bonus" ($500 and $1000 respectively) An employees overall score is achived via a Mid-Cycle rating and an End-of-Cycle rating.

At my Mid-cyle rating I was rated Exceeds Requirements in 10 out of 13 areas, 1 outstanding, and 2 meets requirements.

Recently, I received my End-of-Cycle evaluation. I dropped in 10 out of 13 areas with no justification or documentation to support such actions.

When I attempted to acertain from my rating supervisor why I dropped, I was told I had nothing in my personnel/working file to justify rating me higher than "meets standards"

My collective barganing agreement requires that my rating supervisor be my supervisor for at least 120 days, however, this supervisor was only my supervisor for 67 days

When I mentioned this to my supervisor, I was told "Well, I'm just doing what personnel has told us to do, you need to have something in your file to support rating you higher than meets standards"

Since then I have been on a three ring circus

between my supervisors office and personnel

I have also found that after asking questions and quoting the law that my agency is required to follow (Annotated Code of Maryland, State Personnel and Pensions Act)

I have had insidious and asnine comments made to me. Apparently, the state is trying to save money.

I have contacted my local union with regards to this, they would like to pursue this either via a grievance or Declaratory Ruling.

I am not so sure that I agree with the grievance procedure since the burden of proof is on me (perponderance of evidence)

and I can only take this to the head of my principal unit, not an admininstrative law judge.

As for the Declaratory Ruling,

how would this affect me?

Or would a better option be via an unfair labor practice via the NLRB? Would they have juristiction?

Any guidance would be greatly apprecitated

All Comments

Leave a comment...

    • To Attorney Replogle:

      Thank you for your response. It is greatly appreciated.

      One other thing; have you ever heard of a Declaratory Ruling?

      Is is something that an employee can use to seek relief vice a grievance procedure?

      #1; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 14:21:00 GMT
    • You have to follow all your grievance procedures and timelines set forth in your Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) before you can file for an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP). Besides, to file for a ULP, you as the plaintiff/claimant still has to show (initially) that there has been a violation. In other words, you do have the requirement to produce evidence of the wrong that you are claiming.

      The only agency that doesn't have to produce any evidence to have a claim is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They can literally claim anything about any taxpayer, and it is by definition true. It is then the taxpayer's responsibility to show that it is not true.

      However, this is an anomoly in American jurisprudence. So the normal way is for you the plaintiff to initially come forward with some evidence to support your claim. The defendants then make an initial presentation of evidence to dispute your claim. Then you present other evidence in support of your claim and or dispute their evidence.

      Yet, none of this evidentiary dance can begin unless you first pay the band to play. So go file a claim with your union steward and follow your CBA.

      #2; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 12:46:00 GMT