Appraisal Amendment due to sickness

TELLIT01

Thrugelmir said:

bartelbe said:

I am deeply cynical about British employers and don't trust them.

An odd comment. Employers are just people like everybody else. 

Not only odd, it could be considered racist too.  Try replacing 'British' with other nationalities and watch the reaction.

TBagpuss

TELLIT01 said:

An appraisal is a conversation about, and record of, past performance and there is no reason why it should be affected by health issues at a later date.  I certainly wouldn't agree to it.

The only potentially valid reason I can see is if the appraisal was done earlier than it would normally be done, and the period of illness fell within the normal 12 month appraisal period.

Yes, this was my thought. I'd review the paperwork you were given when you have the appraisal in December, and anything in your employee handbook, and perhaps ask the employer (in writing) to clarify why they are proposing a retrospective change. Say that your understanding was that the appraisal related to, and covered the period up to December, and you do not believe that it should be retrospectively changed to reflect a disability which arose after the event, so you cannot consent to the change, but if they can provide an explanation as to why they believe it is appropriate you will be happy to review the situation.

I also think it's worth checking with Acas - if your health issues are a disability, then treating you less favorably due to that disability would be unlawful, so the next issue is whether they are reviewing everyone's appraisals and changing them, or only yours. 

Jude57

One thing that occurred to me was whether the 'year' the employer is referring to is the calendar year or the financial year. I wonder whether the appraisal was done early for some reason but the change to the OP's attendance was between December and the end of March/beginning of April? If it's normal practice to appraise in December and award (or not) bonuses based on that appraisal then it does seem harsh to want to change the OP's score based on events after the appraisal date. I'd also say that appraisals done months before a cut off date would indicate poor practice on the employer's part. Anything can happen in three months, as the OP has unfortunately found.

I agree with previous posters that OP should certainly seek clarification from their employer and advice from their union if a member/legal advice before agreeing to amend the appraisal.

Nikobee

Thrugelmir said:

What's your longer term sickness record like?  Is this action as a result of something cumulative. 

Thanks everyone for the useful comments so far. I am part of a union so will seek advice once my employer has clarified why they are seeking to retrospectively change the review outcome so long after it was completed and pointed out my sickness did not impact last year. 

To be clear, the review period was specifically for 2020, and says January-December 2020 on the papers. 

I had two sick days in Feb 2020 which are well within the company tolerance and were not even mentioned in the review so there have been no concerns around cumulative absence.

Manxman_in_exile

Nikobee said:

... however I have been asked to agree to change the outcome of my performance rating for a review held in December 2020 for my performance for last year to less than satisfactory based on this year's absence. This would mean I would not be entitled to a bonus payment next month for last year's performance. 
Last year, my performance was good and I know I did a good job and received a good review in December. 
...

You have "been asked to agree"?   Who has asked (eg is it the person who carried out the review or is it from HR) and have they asked in writing?

I cannot see any justifiable reason for asking you to do this.  (Just because it may not be unlawful doesn't mean they should be asking).

You should ask the person who has asked you to agree to this why they are asking.  And get the union involved.  I would definitely not agree to this, unless there was something behind it very much to my advantage.  (Only you can decide that).

(I suspect someone above you - possibly whoever conducted the appraisal - has cocked up somehow - possibly too many "satisfactory" appraisals... )

TELLIT01

Manxman_in_exile said:

(I suspect someone above you - possibly whoever conducted the appraisal - has cocked up somehow - possibly too many "satisfactory" appraisals... )

Sadly that is not beyond the bounds of possibility.  Some years ago I managed a regional support team for a major financial institution.  We were told that we were not allowed to rate everybody as 'satisfactory' or above, somebody must be rated as 'requires improvement'.  A number of managers, myself included, refused to do so.  We all said that we would do honest appraisals and if higher management wanted to downgrade it would be for them to explain to those involved.  We heard nothing more and all staff ended the year with the grading we had given them.

ratechaser

TELLIT01 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

(I suspect someone above you - possibly whoever conducted the appraisal - has cocked up somehow - possibly too many "satisfactory" appraisals... )

Sadly that is not beyond the bounds of possibility.  Some years ago I managed a regional support team for a major financial institution.  We were told that we were not allowed to rate everybody as 'satisfactory' or above, somebody must be rated as 'requires improvement'.  A number of managers, myself included, refused to do so.  We all said that we would do honest appraisals and if higher management wanted to downgrade it would be for them to explain to those involved.  We heard nothing more and all staff ended the year with the grading we had given them.

For as long as I have worked in financial services, there has ALWAYS been a required distribution of ratings across teams.

Even if they are not objectively poor performers, there will always be a 'bottom' 10%... and if everyone is hitting or exceeding their targets then that's the fault of the managers for not setting the bar high enough   

Needless to say, it's not an industry that suits a lot of people. But it pays well if you survive!

Nikobee

Thanks everyone for all of the help and advice. After some polite prodding and querying and a few quotes, I am magically now allowed to keep my rating after "confusion" on their part has led them to realise my absence does not impact last year's performance! Fingers crossed I stay well now and won't need to go through it all again. Thanks everyone for your advice which helped hugely. 

TELLIT01

ratechaser said:

TELLIT01 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

(I suspect someone above you - possibly whoever conducted the appraisal - has cocked up somehow - possibly too many "satisfactory" appraisals... )

Sadly that is not beyond the bounds of possibility.  Some years ago I managed a regional support team for a major financial institution.  We were told that we were not allowed to rate everybody as 'satisfactory' or above, somebody must be rated as 'requires improvement'.  A number of managers, myself included, refused to do so.  We all said that we would do honest appraisals and if higher management wanted to downgrade it would be for them to explain to those involved.  We heard nothing more and all staff ended the year with the grading we had given them.

For as long as I have worked in financial services, there has ALWAYS been a required distribution of ratings across teams.

Even if they are not objectively poor performers, there will always be a 'bottom' 10%... and if everyone is hitting or exceeding their targets then that's the fault of the managers for not setting the bar high enough   

Needless to say, it's not an industry that suits a lot of people. But it pays well if you survive!

We weren't working in 'Financial Services' we were in IT Support and anybody not performing would be unlikely see it through to the end of the year.  There were 9 teams covering the different areas of the UK and the team sizes varied massively. Although we covered the largest geographical area, we had the smallest team with just 5 members.  Other teams, supporting major hubs, would have 20 or 30 people in them.  The small teams couldn't carry a poor performer whereas it would be far easier for somebody in a large team to coast along.