Unsat rating given to an injured (work related) employee

Hi po! My cousin was injured while on duty. It was then proven that it was work related accident where he incurred injuries that got prolonged and made him suffer to date. However, his employer allowed him to continue despite of the accident. It was only after a month when his employer decided to take a prolonged sick leave for him, which is only after finishing his assignment where the accident happened. Though he was still able to deliver, while in pain after the accident, come performance rating period, his employer gave him unsatisfactory rating despite being unable to perform due to the work injuries. Pls help us out identify all the unjust and unfair labor practices therein. Thanks!

i can see no unfair labor practice.

performance rating is based on the output delivered, it only look at the quantity and quality of the output the employee shows. it is normal that if the employee is absent or injured, it will affect the rating of the employee.

So are you saying that one’s incapacity (esp. caused by work related injury) be taken against the employee, esp if he was no longer able to perform becauze of tne said accident? Are you saying that the employee should suffer and be considered at fault, much like be penalized for being involved in an accident? Was that a humane thing to do? If the mishanp was the after all?

What i'm saying is this (i.e.)

Target Rating = Quantity 500 units, Quality 100%
Prior to accident, employee performance rating = Quantity 500 units, Quality 100%
After accident, employee performance rating = Quantity 250 units, Quality 75%

Simple and Basic rating generally measures the output. now, how do you factor what you said work related injury? do you give additional points to the quantity or the quality in the appraisal? that would be unfair to those that had work to give an output as requested by the target rating.

But, due to work related injuries, the employee is exempted to corrective measures for not reaching the target rating.

hope this helps.

What’s the premise of those target ratings? The employee of course do not expect a high rating, but apparently a reasonable rating. So you seem also to say that one can be terminated because of non performance due to accident? Do you honestly consider it humane? Are you a lawyer, Sir, by the way?

The employee is not expecting a rating that is above average but a fair rating. Do you have a basis like law or any reference to your point of views ?

By the way, isn’t already a way of corrective measure that the employee tend to apply by giving failing remarks? And where then do you expect the employer can reflect that fact the employee was not able to reach his targets? Differentiate that corrective measure and the failing rating given.

*by the employer tend to apply

Thank yous

hmm.. i think what I'm trying to point out did not come across..,
Let's start with your query, you are asking is this

"Pls help us out identify all the unjust and unfair labor practices therein"

First, Labor and employment laws don't mandate performance appraisals. but they do prohibit discriminatory employment actions based on nonjob-related factor.

Second, what i was trying to state is performance appraisal or ratings is usually based on factuals and data. usually performance rating consist of many factors or what we called category.

for the premise that you are asking - the example stated previously is based on 2 categories we've used in manufacturing setting which is the most important for that industry - quality output and quantity output.

low quality output yields to rejections and increase cost. low quantity output leads to less stock and poor brand image because company cannot deliver. if an employee is required to hit production of 500 units per day, at 100% quality, he gets the full 5 points on each category. however if he only produces 250 units and some defects on the quality of the product, he gets 2.5 points on quantity output and 2.75 points for quality.

Now, back to the query, from the companies i known, there is no category or point system that will give additional points because the employee is injured, work related or other wise. but the company would take note in the Performance Appraisal that the output was affected because of the injury. Usually this will exempt the employee for any corrective actions because of poor performance at that time.

BTW, employees cannot be terminated due to 1 poor performance rating. it has to be many performance rating with no improvement after being given training or ways for the employees to improve.

btw, everyone he is willing to help, lawyer or not, so please no "personalities" otherwise you will find that no one would like to answer any of your question.

I dont know if you know what is demoralizing and what is unreasonable for someone who did not want his misfortune.

I honestly didnt get the premise we were actually expecting to be said here.

Anyway, like what you’ve mentioned, series of unsat rating is a ground for termination. Now how can you make this unsat rating distinctive or different from that? Giving an unsat rating is apparently a corrective measure against the employee, let’s be all real here.

If you feel it is unfair to those who were able to deliver, what more to someone who got injured and still be treated that way.

I think those who insist that an injured person deserves such are those who are competitive for any performance bonus. Well, let’s be real. But not all people are like everyone else.

Employers should instead observe fairness and equality.

Was there any disciplinary action meted on the employee? if not, what you can do to contest the rating is to file a letter to contest it with the employer. that way if there is further action taken by the employer, you will have the counter argument already on record

Hi AttyLLL,

There’s no disciplinary action taken just yet, but the employer was using the non performance of the employee for a certain period, as well as suddenly stating facts of the shortcomings of the same for that particular assignment where the employee got injured; these are all on top to the fact that the employer slams the employee with a failing rating despite the knowledge of the accident which they themselves were able to established as work related. They seem to be utilizing the performance evaluation as a means of a disciplinary move. Poor ratings (for consecutive identified periods) are basis for delisting/dropping the employee from the rolls/termination.

Btw, pls clarify my understanding with this statement: “the further action taken by the employer...counter argument already on record.”

Thank you

*to establish

further action means disciplinary action.

As explained earlier, having a failing remarks that will get into his 201 filw and will soon be a ground for termination is an implied disciplinary action. What we are confirming is the apparent unfair labor practice thereto. The fact that there are repercussions on the rating received is already an apparent disciplinary move, we suppose.

Please do not speak of 'unfair labor practice' as the same implies offenses relative to the right to self-organization of employees.

If you see malice in the actions of the employer, the employee has all the right to file any complaint. However, you must prove that malice exists.

HRDude

It’s a question about possible unfair labor practice. Malice is quite subjective, btw. I also think, we are questioning the practice for scenario like this. It’s not all about malice, but the proper handling of doing things.

It is the company's prerogative to give the Unsat Rating. Please see my previous advice that the employee should contest it in writing

Like Atty LLL stated, it is the company's prerogative to give the ratings be it sat or unsat AND the same enjoys the presumption of regularity. In this page of yours, you are questioning the process of the Management. Since it is presumed that the action of the management, in giving unsat rating is regular, you are ACTUALLY implying malice on the part of the management. As such, you have to prove the same.

Proper or improper handling of the management of their process is beyond contestation/question BUT if you imply that there is malice involved, prove it.