Judgment No. 2836
The complaint is dismissed.
"[T]he procedures used to assess the performance of international civil servants must be both transparent and adversarial."
adversarial proceedings; organisation's duties; work appraisal; official
The complainant's appointment was not confirmed at the end of her probationary period. She submits that the assessment of her work was tainted with several flaws. She criticises her responsible chief for having taken into account the opinions expressed on her work by other officials in the department.
"The Tribunal considers that it is not per se unlawful for supervisors who have to assess an official's performance and recommend whether or not to confirm his/her appointment to ask colleagues of the person in question how they rate his/her work, as a means of helping them to form their own judgements. A supervisor must of course exercise the requisite caution and discernment when taking such opinions into account, but there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that this requirement was not satisfied in this case."
recommendation; organisation's duties; work appraisal; contract; probationary period; non-renewal of contract; supervisor; flaw; condition
"[A]lthough the Tribunal's case law requires that an official on probation be warned in a timely manner that his/her appointment might not be confirmed, it does not require that a decision not to renew a contract should rest on exactly the same criticisms as those of which the person concerned had previously been notified (see Judgments 1546 and 2162)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546, 2162
grounds; case law; organisation's duties; duty to inform; probationary period; non-renewal of contract; warning; difference; official
"[I]t is not necessarily contradictory for performance to be rated differently from one reporting period to the next (see, for example, Judgment 2162, under 3)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2162
work appraisal; performance report; difference; official