Title 9 Part 148

On June 18, 1979, New York State and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (CSEA) signed a collective bargaining agreement for the period April 1, 1979 through March 31, 1982, covering employees in the Administrative Services, Institutional Services and Operational Services negotiating units which requires that employee performance be evaluated in an objective manner based on standards established by management. In June 1980, the State and CSEA signed a second agreement which revised certain aspects of the performance evaluation system outlined in the original agreement. Monetary compensation in the form of a performance advancement payment or a performance award payment shall be available to eligible employees in the three bargaining units, dependent upon the employee performance rating. The purpose of such performance evaluation is to motivate all employees toward more effective performance and greater productivity by the provision of advancements or awards to eligible employees.

This Part shall apply to all annual salaried employees in the Administrative Services, Institutional Services and Operational Services negotiating units whose positions have been allocated to salary grades or are unallocated but are equated to salary grades by the Director of the Budget. Excluded from coverage are those employees paid on other than an annual basis.

Wherever used in this Part:

hiring rate is the minimum salary stated in the salary schedule for each of the salary grades applicable to employees covered by this Part.

job rate is the maximum salary stated in the salary schedule for each of the salary grades applicable to employees covered by this Part.

salary range is the dollar difference between the hiring rate and the job rate of a salary grade.

performance advancement payment is an increase in basic annual salary for an employee who is below the job rate of the salary grade, based on a performance evaluation.

performance award payment is a lump sum payment made to an employee who is at or above the job rate, based on a performance evaluation.

anniversary date in salary grade is an employee's appointment date to salary grade which is the date used to initiate the employee's evaluation cycle. For employees who have not changed salary grades since March 31, 1979, the anniversary date in salary grade is April first.

final rating determines eligibility for a performance advancement payment or performance award payment and generally occurs annually. However, in the case of employees who are award-eligible, the final rating is the performance rating which last occurs on or before October first of each calendar year.

interim rating is a performance rating which takes place six months from the employee's final rating date.

performance rating is one of three terms used to describe an employee's performance. These terms are Outstanding, Effective and Unsatisfactory.

appraiser is generally the employee's immediate supervisor, the person most familiar with the employee's work and therefore in the best position to evaluate day-to-day performance. This is the individual who usually assigns and reviews the employee's work. Responsibility for appraising employee performance and assisting the rater in assigning ratings resides with the immediate supervisor.

rater is generally the next level of supervision above the appraiser (immediate supervisor), the person to whom the employee's immediate supervisor usually reports for work assignments. The responsibility and authority for assigning a rating reside with this level of supervision. The performance rating assigned by the rater remains tentative and does not become the employee's assigned performance rating until review and approval by the management-level reviewer.

reviewer is generally the first level of management in direct line above the rater. This individual is responsible for assuring that the appraisal process has been conducted thoroughly and in a manner consistent with the objectives of the program. This includes reviewing the evaluations to assure that tasks and performance expectations have been applied appropriately and equitably by each rater and among various raters under his/her direction, resulting in ratings which appropriately describe the levels of employee performance throughout the work unit. The reviewer has the authority and responsibility to correct any deficiencies or inequities which might exist.

The employee's performance is clearly exceptional in comparison with performance expectations. The employee's performance consistently exceeds all performance expectations for the job. The employee can be relied upon to perform the most difficult and complex assignments in an independent and timely manner. Work is always completed in an accurate and appropriate manner. This exceptional performance causes the employee to stand out among other employees in the work unit.

Generally, the employee does not meet expectations for many of the important tasks/duties of this job. The employee frequently fails to meet reasonable expectations for routine tasks and/or occasionally fails to meet performance expectations in carrying out critical assignments. There is need for immediate and significant improvement in performance.

Effective or Outstanding during the preceding six-month evaluation period shall be eligible to receive performance advances. Employees eligible for a performance advancement who receive a final rating of Effective will receive an advancement once a year.

Effective or Outstanding will receive a performance advancement payable effective the payroll period commencing four weeks after the payroll period in which the employee's performance evaluation is due.

Outstanding at the end of six months will be considered as a final rating and will begin a new 12-month rating cycle. Such employees will receive an advancement payable effective the payroll period commencing four weeks after the payroll period in which the employee's performance evaluation is due.

Unsatisfactory will have the salary advancement withheld for one year unless the next six-month rating is Outstanding.

Outstanding or Highly effective or had insufficient time in grade to receive an interim rating before the moratorium; and

Outstanding for such period, will be eligible for a retroactive expedited payment as if their evaluation had been due on October 1, 1980.

the moratorium shall be that portion of the performance evaluation program conducted under interim guidelines as specified in the Office of Employee Relations memorandum of January 11, 1980.

The Performance Evaluation Subcommittee of the NYS-CSEA Joint Labor-Management Committee on the Work Environment and Productivity will monitor the administration of the program in accordance with the State/CSEA agreements. Complaints and allegations of arbitrary actions by persons involved in the administration of the program may be brought to the attention of the subcommittee by appropriate responsible union or management representatives.

Upon the request of the Director of the Budget, each agency shall provide timely statistical reports of performance evaluation ratings, performance advancement payments and performance award payments in a manner prescribed by the director. Such reports shall be filed simultaneously in a timely fashion with the Director of the Budget and the director of the Office of Employee Relations.

Upon the request of the Director of the Budget, each agency shall submit a plan, developed in accordance with such guidelines as may be issued for such purposes, which at a minimum sets forth the agency's projected rating plan and anticipated expenditures for advancement and award payments for the ensuing fiscal year or other appropriate reporting period.

The specific provisions and limitations contained in this Part may be waived pursuant to provisions of law, in accordance with the terms of negotiated agreements between the State and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., reached, pursuant to article 14 of the Civil Service Law, by the Director of the Budget whenever he determines that strict adherence to the rules would be detrimental to the sound and orderly administration of State government.