No. 30050: R477-10. Employee Development

DAR File No.: 30050
Filed: 06/09/2007, 11:04
Received by: NL

NOTICE OF REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF CONTINUATION

Concise explanation of the particular statutory provisions under which the rule is enacted and how these provisions authorize or require the rule:

Section 67-19-6 contains a general grant of rulemaking authority for human resource management and a specific charge concerning training programs and who has authority for certain types of training. Section 67-19-12 governs pay plans and gives authority to the Department of Human Resource Management (DHRM) to write rules governing how employees receive step advances on the salary range. Performance may be considered in writing these rules.

Summary of written comments received during and since the last five-year review of the rule from interested persons supporting or opposing the rule:

The vast majority of written comments for this rule focused on the corrective action provisions and came primarily from two sources, the Utah Public Employees' Association (UPEA) and human resource staff from the various departments. Many comments from UPEA requested a more tightly defined process for corrective action specifying that managers be required to include four components: closer supervision, period of constant review, opportunity for remediation, and a mid point evaluation. Currently, management is required to include only one or more of these and other components in the plan. UPEA also asked that the rule be amended to require management to give the employee the entire time period specified in the corrective action plan to remedy performance unless significant evidence shows that continuation of the corrective action will not result in improvement. DHRM agreed and made the appropriate amendment. A request from the Department of Human Services (DHS) staff asked for more specific language on the documentation of corrective action. Another request from DHS asked that management be required to have regular meetings with employees on corrective action. Human resource staff from the Tax Commission asked that all corrective action plans be written. Several comments were received asking that language be incorporated making it more clear that corrective action is an option available to management to correct job performance and not mandatory in all cases. DHRM generally agrees with these recommendations and has amended these provisions many times to clarify this policy. Human resource staff from the Tax Commission requested more explicit language on the repayment of educational assistance when an employee leaves within one year of receiving the assistance. In 2004, an employee from the Department of Transportation petitioned DHRM to remove the rule that required an employee to declare agreement or disagreement with the performance rating. Research was submitted to DHRM showing that this is not part of typical performance reviews. One important reason is that a general statement is not specific enough and can create significant legal questions in litigation. DHRM agreed and deleted the rule.

Reasoned justification for continuation of the rule, including reasons why the agency disagrees with comments in opposition to the rule, if any:

This rule sets parameters for agencies in conducting important development activities for employees including evaluation of their performance, corrective actions to save employees whose performance is not up to standard, and training and educational assistance. Documentation of employee performance and agency attempts to help an employee improve performance are important records in disciplinary proceedings and justification of employee salary increases. Corrective action is an administrative device used early in the process of dealing with poor performance before applying more formal and legally defined procedures. Therefore, this rule should be continued. DHRM did not adopt the recommendation from UPEA for a more tightly defined process. When confronted with these requests, DHRM has always held that at this point in the process management needs maximum flexibility. Examples include situations where an employee works mostly in the field and management simply does not have the opportunity to communicate frequently enough to comply with the UPEA recommendations. In another example, a skill deficit may be responsible for the substandard performance and training is the only needed remedy. DHRM did not adopt the recommendation from DHS for more specific language for documentation feeling that the level of specificity is more appropriately set at the agency level since agencies may have very different needs. Law enforcement, for example, typically requires specific records in an employee's files that are not used by other agencies. The recommendation from DHS to require regular meetings was not adopted. There are many situations in state government where this is impossible given the amount of time many employees spend in the field. DHRM disagreed with the Tax Commission recommendation that all corrective actions be written pointing out that this may not be necessary in certain situations when a simple solution can solve the problem without all the work required in a formal written document. DHRM did not adopt the recommendation from the Tax Commission for more specific language in rule regarding the repayment of educational assistance when an employee terminates. This is seen as a policy more appropriately set by each agency.

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Human Resource Management
Administration
Room 2120 STATE OFFICE BLDG
450 N MAIN ST
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-1201

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Lyle Almond at the above address, by phone at 801-538-3391, by FAX at 801538-3081, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Authorized by:

Jeff Herring, Executive Director