Performance management – reduction in classification for underperformance

In our view, the agency had made a fair and reasonable decision in the circumstances. In particular, there was sufficient evidence of underpeformance by the employee, even after support was provided to assist the employee to improve. The agency had also acted fairly and had followed all steps required in the relevant policy.

When we conducted the review, we considered:

• evidence of the employee's performance
• feedback from the manager
• the performance management policy
• the formal requirements in the agency's Enterprise Agreement
• the relevant sections of the Public Service Act 1999.

We concluded the agency had acted fairly and reasonably in their performance management of the employee. We considered the agency had followed all of the required steps as set out in the Enterprise Agreement, and had provided support to the employee to assist them to improve. When the employee’s performance did not improve, we considered it was then appropriate for the agency to move to the next step of a formal underperformance management process. We noted the employee was given adequate warning about the areas of their performance that were not up to standard and what improvement was required. The agency had also advised the employee in advance that without improvement, the employee’s salary or classification may be reduced.

We concluded there was sufficient evidence of underperformance. In our view, the evidence indicated the employee did not meet the requirements of their role, including in regards to their standard of written communication, completion of tasks, and that they had not followed reasonable management instructions. On the evidence, the employee needed considerable supervision and their work needed an unreasonable amount of revision by the supervisor. We concluded the decision to rate the employee’s performance as unsatisfactory was reasonable and appropriate.

We recommended that the decision be confirmed.