2015 Appraisals & Rating Challenge Checklist

Good day everyone.

Please read the messages below. This is an important issue and the Association is asking to be informed of anyone who receives a rating of 2 on their performance review and further to that, whether you feel that there is an adequate explanation for it.

A bit of brief background, the 5 point rating scale was brought in to provide more flexibility in rating performance. Under the previous scale, anything less than a 2 had quite severe ramifications including loss of bonus pay, the loss of an opportunity for pay progression and the inability to transfer. With the new rating system, the 2 was seen as a way to provide a somewhat gentler “nudge” for a member who needed to improve in some areas but without imposing the severe penalties.

Unfortunately the manner in which the 5 point system was rolled out was inadequate and uninformative.

After speaking to members throughout the local there seems to be no rhyme, reason or consistency in the way members’ year end results are being determined. Some members are receiving the results from the superintendents, others from their manager. Some depots are being told that the rating is based entirely on the depot results….yet some members in those depots receive a 2 others a 3. So somebody please explain that one…because so far the Corporation hasn’t.

I have three main concerns. Number one is that this is the first year for this rating system and it will set somewhat of a precedent for the future both for the association and for each of you personally. The second is that it was never intended (as far as I’m aware) that a member would need to hit every target to rate a 3. I just want to ensure that if any of you receive a 2 rating that there are genuinely valid reasons for it and that the gap is clearly identified so that it can be successfully bridged in the future.

The Association is asking that you don’t just sign off on your year end with a one line response.

: We’re asking that you write a comprehensive letter on why you feel your rating is inappropriate and more importantly how the rating makes you feel. Be frank, professional and diplomatic.

: We’re also asking that you send this letter to the Association, to both Dave Watters and myself to we can carry this forward both locally and nationally

I appreciate that some of you may be sensitive about sharing this information but we are here to assist you regardless and it is vital for the present and for the future of all of us.

Thanks for your attention and cooperation!

Regards, Steve

Steve Gustard
President, Pacific Coast Branch
Association of Postal Officials of Canada
work: 604 588 1322 cell: 604 323 3130


PMP 2015 – Rating Challenge Checklist

Association Members who have received a rating of 2 for their 2015 Performance and who have indicated the rating applied by CPC improperly reflects their contribution for the 2015 year are required to complete this report. This information will assist APOC in representing your concerns to the corporation…. view form

Comments are closed