9.8 Position Descriptions, Performance Appraisal Instruments, Progressive Discipline & Employer Relations
Key Takeaways
- Under EEOC ADA regulations (29 CFR 1630.2(n)), a job description written before hiring is evidence of essential functions; marginal functions may be reassigned as accommodation, but essential functions generally may not be removed, and frequency alone does not determine essentiality.
- The just-cause test an arbitrator applies has six elements: known rule, reasonable rule, fair investigation, substantial proof, consistent application, and proportional penalty; consistency across shifts is the element EVS departments fail most often.
- Weingarten rights entitle a unionized employee to representation at an investigatory interview only when the employee requests it — the employer need not volunteer it, and the right does not attach to a meeting merely announcing a decision.
- NLRA Section 7 protects concerted activity about wages, hours, and working conditions for non-union employees too, so disciplining staff for jointly raising a staffing complaint is an unfair labor practice even in a non-union hospital.
- Task 6.G.1 requires three tiers of training requirements — frontline, supervisor, and manager — with supervisors additionally trained on progressive discipline, FMLA/ADA recognize-and-refer, and wage-hour rules.
9.8 HR Management Functions: Job Descriptions, Performance Appraisal, Discipline & Labor Relations
Task 6.G is the densest single task in the CHESP outline. It reads: "Manage human resources functions, including developing position/job descriptions and performance appraisal instruments, implementing disciplinary actions, conducting interviews, and possessing a working knowledge of employer relations" — and then hangs five numbered sub-items beneath it. Section 9.1 covered the interviewing and reward/recognition/retention half (sub-item 6.G.2), and Section 9.6 covered department committees and work teams (6.G.3). This section covers what remains: the two documents the task names, the disciplinary process, the employer-relations knowledge base, the tiered training requirement in 6.G.1, and the engagement-survey loop in 6.G.4-6.G.5.
Expect these items as scenario questions rather than definitions. The exam rarely asks "what is a job description"; it asks what an EVS director should have done before an accommodation request, a termination, or a union grievance landed on the desk.
1. The Position Description: The Document Everything Else Hangs On
A position description is not HR paperwork. It is the legal and operational anchor for recruitment, competency validation, appraisal, accommodation, and discipline — and if it is inaccurate, every downstream action built on it is contestable.
A defensible EVS position description contains six parts:
| Component | What It Must Contain | Why It Matters on the Exam |
|---|---|---|
| Position identification | Title, department, reporting relationship, FLSA exempt/non-exempt status, shift | Non-exempt misclassification is the most common wage-and-hour exposure in EVS, where most frontline roles are hourly and overtime-eligible |
| Position summary | Two or three sentences on purpose and scope | Sets the frame recruiters and candidates work from |
| Essential functions | The fundamental job duties, each stated as an observable action | This is the ADA-operative list — see below |
| Marginal functions | Duties that are genuinely incidental and reassignable | Reassigning a marginal function is a reasonable accommodation; removing an essential function generally is not |
| Physical and environmental demands | Lifting limits, standing/walking hours, exposure to bloodborne pathogens, chemicals, latex, noise | Drives post-offer fitness screening and the respiratory-protection medical evaluation |
| Qualifications and competencies | Education, licensure, language, and the competencies verified in Section 9.2 | The appraisal instrument must measure these and only these |
The essential-functions rule. Under the EEOC's ADA regulations (29 CFR 1630.2(n)), a written job description prepared before advertising or interviewing for the position is evidence of what the essential functions actually are. Prepared after an employee requests an accommodation or files a charge, it carries far less weight and looks constructed. The regulation also lists what makes a function essential: the position exists to perform it, few other employees are available to absorb it, or it is highly specialized. Frequency alone does not make a function essential — a duty performed once a month can be essential; a duty performed daily can be marginal.
Exam trap. "Other duties as assigned" is not an essential function and cannot support an adverse action. If pushing a 400-pound linen cart up a ramp matters, write the weight and the distance into the description.
Position descriptions should be reviewed on a defined cycle — annually is common, and always when the technology changes. When the department adopts UV-C robots, electrostatic sprayers, or a bed-tracking dispatch system, the descriptions for the affected roles are stale the day the equipment arrives.
2. Performance Appraisal Instruments
The outline says "developing performance appraisal instruments" — the CHESP is expected to build the tool, not merely fill one out. An instrument is defensible when every rated item traces back to an essential function or a verified competency.
Instrument types
| Instrument | How It Works | Best Use in EVS | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graphic rating scale | Numeric scale (e.g. 1-5) against generic traits such as "dependability" | Fast; usable across a 200-person department | Trait language is subjective and the hardest type to defend in a grievance |
| Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) | Each scale point is anchored to an observed behavior ("consistently completes the seven-step discharge clean in sequence without prompting") | Frontline EVS technicians, where the work is observable and standardized | Time-consuming to build; needs one scale per job family |
| Competency-based | Rates the competencies verified in orientation and annual competency validation | Ties appraisal directly to Section 9.2 competency records | Requires the competency program to actually exist |
| Management by Objectives (MBO) | Rates achievement of pre-agreed measurable goals | Supervisors and managers, tied to the SMART goals of Section 9.5 | Poor fit for frontline roles with no individual goal-setting authority |
| 360-degree feedback | Aggregates input from peers, nursing partners, and direct reports | Developmental use for supervisors; nursing is EVS's primary internal customer | Should not drive compensation — respondents inflate or retaliate |
Rating errors the exam tests
- Halo / horns effect — one strong or weak dimension colors every other rating.
- Central tendency — every employee rated "3 of 5," which destroys the instrument's ability to differentiate and makes merit pay indefensible.
- Leniency / severity — a whole shift rated high or low because of the rater, not the ratees. Detect it by comparing rating distributions across supervisors; if one supervisor's mean is a full point above the others, the problem is the rater.
- Recency — the last six weeks outweigh the other forty-six. The countermeasure is contemporaneous documentation: a running log, not an annual reconstruction.
- Similar-to-me bias — higher ratings for employees who share the rater's background, language, or shift history. This is where an appraisal system becomes a Title VII exposure.
Process rules. Appraise against the description, document specific incidents with dates, deliver the rating in a private scheduled meeting, allow written employee comment, and have the employee sign to acknowledge receipt — not agreement. An employee refusing to sign is documented as refusal witnessed by a third party; the appraisal still stands. Never introduce a performance problem for the first time in an annual appraisal. If it is serious enough to lower a rating, it should already be on the record.
3. Implementing Disciplinary Actions
Progressive discipline is corrective, not punitive: each step gives notice and an opportunity to fix the behavior before the consequence escalates.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE - STANDARD EVS PROGRESSION |
| |
| STEP 0: COACHING / VERBAL COUNSELING |
| Not formal discipline. Documented in the supervisor's log only. |
| Most EVS performance issues should be resolved here. |
| | |
| STEP 1: DOCUMENTED VERBAL WARNING |
| First formal step. Placed in the personnel file. |
| | |
| STEP 2: WRITTEN WARNING |
| States the standard, the gap, the correction expected, and the |
| consequence of recurrence. Employee signs for receipt. |
| | |
| STEP 3: FINAL WRITTEN WARNING / SUSPENSION |
| Often paired with a written performance improvement plan (PIP) |
| carrying explicit measures and a review date. |
| | |
| STEP 4: TERMINATION |
| Reviewed by HR and, where applicable, labor relations BEFORE |
| it is communicated to the employee. |
| |
| SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BYPASSES THE LADDER: violence or credible threats, |
| theft, patient abuse, falsifying records, HIPAA breach, working |
| impaired, deliberate refusal to follow an isolation or PPE requirement. |
| These go straight to investigatory suspension pending review. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Just cause is the standard an arbitrator applies, and it is the framework the exam rewards: Was the rule known to the employee? Is the rule reasonably related to safe and efficient operations? Was there a fair investigation before the decision? Is the proof substantial? Has the rule been applied consistently to similarly situated employees? Is the penalty proportional to the offense and the employee's record?
Consistency is the element EVS departments fail most often, because the department runs three shifts under different supervisors. Two technicians with identical attendance records who receive different discipline on different shifts is the single most damaging fact pattern in a discrimination charge or a grievance — and Section 6.6 explains why it also creates Title VII exposure independent of the underlying conduct.
A written disciplinary document should contain: the date and specific facts, the policy or standard violated, prior related steps, the correction required, the review timeframe, the consequence of recurrence, and signature lines for the supervisor, employee, and a witness.
4. Working Knowledge of Employer Relations
The outline asks for a working knowledge — enough to avoid creating liability and to know when to call HR or labor relations. Healthcare EVS is among the most heavily unionized functions in a hospital, so this is live content.
| Concept | What the CHESP Must Know |
|---|---|
| NLRA Section 7 | Employees have the right to engage in protected concerted activity — acting together about wages, hours, or working conditions. This protects non-union employees too. Disciplining two technicians for jointly complaining to administration about staffing is an unfair labor practice regardless of whether a union exists |
| Weingarten rights | In a unionized workplace, an employee who requests representation is entitled to a union representative at an investigatory interview the employee reasonably believes may lead to discipline (NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 1975). The employer does not have to volunteer the right; the employee must ask. The right does not attach to a meeting merely announcing a decision already made |
| Collective bargaining agreement (CBA) | The contract governs seniority, shift and job bidding, overtime distribution, layoff and recall, and the discipline procedure. Where the CBA and hospital policy conflict, the CBA controls for bargaining-unit employees |
| Grievance procedure | Typically a stepped process: supervisor → department director → HR/labor relations → binding arbitration. The EVS director usually owns Step 2 — answer in writing within the contractual deadline, because blowing the deadline can concede the grievance on its face |
| Past practice | A consistent, known, long-standing practice can become binding even when unwritten. Unilaterally ending a practice such as shift-preference holiday scheduling can itself be a violation |
| Duty to bargain | Changes to mandatory subjects — wages, hours, working conditions — require notice and bargaining. Outsourcing bargaining-unit work (Section 8.5) is the classic example |
| Supervisory conduct during organizing | The "TIPS" limits: no Threats, Interrogation, Promises, or Surveillance regarding union activity. Frontline supervisors create most of a hospital's unfair-labor-practice exposure |
5. Training Requirements by Level (Task 6.G.1)
Sub-item 6.G.1 asks the CHESP to "develop training requirements for managers, supervisors and staff" — three tiers, not one curriculum. Section 9.2 built the frontline pathway; this is the rest of the structure.
| Tier | Required Content | Typical Cycle |
|---|---|---|
| Frontline technician | Bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication and SDS access, PPE, seven-step cleaning and discharge protocol, isolation precautions, waste segregation, equipment safety, fire response and life safety (Section 6.4) | Orientation, then annually |
| Lead / trainer | Everything above plus return-demonstration coaching, competency checklist sign-off, audit technique (ATP and fluorescent marker) | Orientation to role, then annually |
| Supervisor | Everything above plus interviewing and lawful questioning, documentation standards, progressive discipline and just cause, FMLA/ADA recognize-and-refer, timekeeping and wage-hour rules, incident investigation | On promotion, then annually |
| Manager / director | Everything above plus budget variance and FTE analysis (Chapter 8), regulatory survey readiness, contract and SLA management, emergency management role under HICS (Section 6.7) | On promotion, then annually |
The critical exam point: supervisors need regulatory and employment-law training that frontline staff do not, and the department is liable for a supervisor's mishandling of an FMLA notice or an accommodation request whether or not that supervisor was ever trained. Training records are part of the compliance documentation set in Section 6.8.
6. The Engagement Survey Loop (Tasks 6.G.4 and 6.G.5)
The outline splits this deliberately into two tasks — evaluate the results (6.G.4) and develop action plans based on the results (6.G.5) — because departments routinely do the first and skip the second.
ADMINISTER -> RECEIVE & SEGMENT -> SHARE BACK -> CO-DESIGN -> EXECUTE -> RE-MEASURE
(annual) (by shift, unit, (within (staff pick (owner + (next cycle
tenure, language) 30-60 days) the fixes) due date) + pulse checks)
Evaluating results (6.G.4). Read the department mean last. What matters is the spread: segment by shift, by building, by supervisor, by tenure band, and by primary language. A department at the 60th percentile overall can be hiding a night shift at the 15th. Watch two specific items, because they predict EVS turnover better than the composite score — "I have the tools and equipment I need to do my job well" and "my supervisor treats me with respect." Also read the response rate itself: a frontline response rate under about half usually means the survey was inaccessible — English-only, computer-based, or administered on personal time — before it means anything about engagement.
Action planning (6.G.5). Choose one or two priorities, not ten; a department that publishes a twelve-item action plan completes none of them. Involve the staff who produced the score in choosing the fixes — participation in the design is itself an engagement driver. Each action needs a named owner, a due date, and a visible completion signal. Then close the loop out loud: post what changed and attribute it to the survey. The fastest way to destroy the next cycle's response rate is to collect a survey and never mention it again.
Tie the output back to Section 9.5: engagement score, turnover, and vacancy rate belong on the departmental scorecard, and an action plan without a measure is a wish.
An EVS technician who has developed a lifting restriction requests an accommodation. The director discovers the position description for EVS Technician II was last revised four years ago and does not mention linen-cart pushing, waste-cart handling, or any weight figure, even though those duties consume roughly a third of the shift. The director drafts a revised description listing them as essential functions and dates it today. What is the primary problem with this approach?
Reviewing annual appraisals across the department, a director finds that one supervisor rated all 34 of their direct reports either 3 or 4 on a 5-point scale, while the other three supervisors produced ratings spanning 1 through 5 with similar means. Merit increases are driven by these scores. What rating error is most clearly present, and what is the correct corrective action?
A night-shift EVS technician in a bargaining unit is called into the supervisor's office and told there will be an investigation into a missing supply cabinet key. The employee asks for a union steward to be present. The supervisor replies that this is only a fact-finding conversation and proceeds with questioning. Which principle governs, and what should the supervisor have done?
A department's annual engagement survey returns a composite score at the 62nd percentile, which leadership calls a success. Segmenting the data shows the night shift at the 14th percentile with a 31% response rate, while day shift sits at the 78th. What do tasks 6.G.4 and 6.G.5 require the CHESP to do next?