|
This Page |
(FEDERAL PERSONAL LAW ONLINE) |
This Page |
|
... Agency may remove an employee who successfully completed a PIPIf an employee performed acceptably during the PIP then again performs unacceptably within one year of the beginning date of PIP (in the critical element(s) for which the employee was afforded an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance), the agency may propose a reduction in grade or removal under this part, without providing the employee with an additional PIP. (this is a Permerica.Com logical-interpretation of the regulation and MSPB decision below ) |
| 5cfr 432.105 (a) para (1) Once an employee has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance pursuant to §432.104, an agency may propose a reduction-in-grade or removal action if the employee's performance during or following the opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance is unacceptable in 1 or more of the critical elements for which the employee was afforded an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance. |
| 5 cfr 432.105 (a) para (2) If an employee has performed acceptably for 1 year from the beginning of an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance (in the critical element(s) for which the employee was afforded an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance), and the employee's performance again becomes unacceptable, the agency shall afford the employee an additional opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance before determining whether to propose a reduction in grade or removal under this part. |
| MSPB
DECISION: Denis E. Sullivan v. Navy DOCKET NUMBER: SF04328610843
DATE: April 17, 1990:
... "Accordingly, we hold here that an agency may generally rely on instances of unacceptable performance in the same critical element or elements that occur after the successful completion of a PIP. Consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 4303(d), reliance must be limited to those instances that occur within 1 year of the advance notice issued under section 4303(b)(1)(A). In those cases where no such notice is issued because of improved performance during the PIP, we find that it would not accord with fairness or the intent of the provision to allow the agency to delay taking action indefinitely beyond the close of the PIP. Thus, reading together 5 U.S.C. §§ 4302(b)(6), 4303(c)(2)(A), and 4303(d), we find that the 1 year period should be limited not only retroactively but prospectively as well, by requiring that the agency not delay taking action more than one year after the beginning of the PIP. Beyond that date, if performance again falls, the agency should be required to place the employee on a new PIP before initiating action under Chapter 43. ..." (actual decision-HTML) (actual decision-PDF - Huge 1MB) ........ U.S.C. § 4303 |