ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Work appraisal (282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Work appraisal
Total judgments found: 137

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >

  • Judgment 4215


    129th Session, 2020
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.

    Considerations 12 & 18

    Extract:

    It is well established that an organisation which requires a staff member to undergo a probation period on his appointment must, in particular, set objectives for him so that he knows what criteria will be used to assess his performance, assess his merits following the proper procedure and, if it finds his performance unsatisfactory, inform him in sufficient time for him to attempt to remedy the situation, and warn him in specific terms if there is a risk that his appointment will not be confirmed at the end of his probation (see, for example, on these various points, Judgments 1741, considerations 15 and 16, 2529, consideration 15, 2788, consideration 1, 3240, consideration 21, 3845, consideration 8, and 3866, considerations 5 and 10).
    [...]
    Lastly, [...] although the complainant was informed of his alleged shortcomings, the evidence shows that he was not warned in specific terms, as required under the Tribunal’s case law, of the risk that his appointment would not be confirmed at the end of his probation period.

    Keywords:

    probationary period; work appraisal;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; probationary period; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4115


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The disciplinary proceedings were initiated before the appraisal period concluded. In Judgment 3224 the Tribunal said at consideration 7 that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. The decision to commence disciplinary proceedings can, for the purposes of the application of this principle, be characterised as an adverse decision. Even if the EPO believed that nothing was going to change, in terms of the complainant’s conduct, between the time the disciplinary proceedings were commenced and the conclusion of the appraisal period a little over a month later, it was nonetheless obliged to complete the assessment of the complainant’s performance in accordance with Circular No. 366 before initiating the disciplinary proceedings.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; due process; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4072


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recognizes that international organizations have the discretion to manage their performance management objectives but highlights that they must do so using the tools they have in the manner in which they are designed (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).
    [...]
    In the present case, the Global Fund sought to use a tool (the performance improvement plan) which is explicitly designed to correct identified underperformance, in order to address an issue of potential future underperformance. The Tribunal finds that this inappropriate use of the PIP constitutes a misuse of authority which rendered the process non-transparent and arbitrary (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority; performance evaluation; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4071


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recognizes that international organizations have the discretion to manage their performance management objectives but highlights that they must do so using the tools they have in the manner in which they are designed (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).
    [...]
    In the present case, the Global Fund sought to use a tool (the performance improvement plan) which is explicitly designed to correct identified underperformance, in order to address an issue of potential future underperformance. The Tribunal finds that this inappropriate use of the PIP constitutes a misuse of authority which rendered the process non-transparent and arbitrary (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority; performance evaluation; work appraisal;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, performance appraisals are the only criterion of performance where international civil servants are concerned (see Judgment 2544, consideration 8) and no account may be taken of an ad hoc assessment conducted in parallel to the statutory performance evaluation (see Judgment 3436, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2544, 3436

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4062


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

    Considerations 8 and 12

    Extract:

    The evidence, and in particular the hearing before the Reports Board and deliberations of the Appeals Board, as presented in the
    respective opinions of these two collegial bodies, shows that at the material time there were serious internal communication shortcomings in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, to which the complainant was assigned.
    It appears, and the evidence also shows, that this situation was to a large extent due to the great number of responsibilities and particularly complex tasks that had been assigned to that Section. This had in fact prompted the complainant’s direct supervisor, on 20 March 2013, to report his superiors on the Section’s “[i]ntolerable workload”*in a memorandum especially intended for that purpose, in which he emphasised that the resulting working conditions were extremely difficult for himself and for all staff members concerned.
    Such a working environment is clearly detrimental to the quality of staff performance and makes it particularly difficult, a fortiori, for employees who are not providing satisfactory services to improve the quality of their performance.
    [...]
    It follows from these provisions, which, moreover, merely state general principles that apply to any professional appraisal procedure, that particular circumstances such as a serious lack of communication between an employee and her/his supervisors, or extraordinary pressure on the service that an employee is working in, resulting from an unbearable collective workload, must be taken into account in assessing the performance of a staff member.

    Keywords:

    general principle; performance evaluation; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3932


    125th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.

    Considerations 21 & 26

    Extract:

    The determinative issue in this case is whether the evaluation of the complainant’s performance was procedurally flawed. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that “an organisation has a wide discretion in deciding whether to renew a fixed-term appointment and its right to refuse to renew can be based on unsatisfactory performance”. As well, “such a discretionary decision can be successfully impugned if it is fatally flawed by, for example, procedural defects, a failure to take account of some essential fact, abuse or misuse of authority, or if it was based on an error of fact or of law” (see Judgment 3743, consideration 2, and the cases cited therein). The Tribunal has also consistently held that “an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance” (see Judgment 3252, consideration 8, and the case cited therein).
    [...]
    It was only in the memorandum of 9 July 2012 that the complainant was informed of the extensive deficiencies in her performance both in terms of her duties and conduct. This letter cannot be viewed as a proper or fair evaluation for a number of reasons. First, it was not in compliance with the mandatory PEMS. Second, other than the deficiencies identified in the audit attributed to the complainant, the letter does not give any detail with respect to when and what the observations were and which interactions with other colleagues at headquarters and in the SAP gave rise to concerns. [...] Third, the unilateral determination that the eleven deficiencies identified in the audit were solely attributable to the complainant and that the renewal of her fixed-term contract was, therefore, in jeopardy, without providing the complainant with an opportunity to respond, was a clear breach of the complainant’s due process rights. This was further exacerbated by her supervisor’s and the Director, OSD’s failure to reply to or take into account the complainant’s extensive response to the alleged deficiencies attributed to her in the audit report.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 3743

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3678


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him at the end of his probation period.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It is true that there is no evidence in the file to show that the Organization formally notified the complainant during his probation period that there was an objective risk that his appointment would not be confirmed at the end of that period. However, it is clear from the end-probation period report of November 2013, which was forwarded to him and on which he in fact commented, that his supervisor considered that his performance fell short of the expected level. In addition [...], the complainant was informed on several occasions during his probation period that he was not achieving the objectives which had been set for him in his induction interview. In these circumstances, the complainant must have been aware that he ran a serious risk of not having his appointment confirmed at the end of his probation period.

    Keywords:

    judicial review; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3670


    122nd Session, 2016
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her Staff Performance Appraisal report, as well as the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3613


    121st Session, 2016
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his employment for alleged unsatisfactory performance, the Global Fund’s refusal to retract a News Release published on the date of the termination of his employment, and the decision to maintain the News Release on the Fund’s website and its refusal to award compensation for excessive publication, defamation and continued breach of privacy.

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member whose performance is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be
    informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of her or his performance so that steps may be taken to remedy the deficiencies. The staff member is also entitled to have objectives set in advance so that she or he will know the basis upon which future performance will be based and that their appointment is in jeopardy if there is no improvement. As well, an organization may not terminate a staff member for unsatisfactory performance unless it has complied with its own rules to evaluate that performance. As stated in Judgment 2414, under 23, “[t]hese are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3432


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; probationary period; residence permit; termination of employment; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3417


    119th Session, 2015
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that IOM's failure to ensure compliance with its performance evaluation procedures warranted an award of moral damages to the complainant.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[W]hile there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13 [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3282


    116th Session, 2014
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that “an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better […]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance […].” [...] Consistent case law states that “[a] staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation” (see Judgment 2414, under 23).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2916

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3264


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[D]uring the extension of the probationary period, [...] its duty to act in good faith obligated the Organization to give the complainant guidance and a meaningful opportunity to improve measured against objective standards."

    Keywords:

    good faith; organisation's duties; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3252


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension of contract; fixed-term; work appraisal;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "There is a general principle applied by this Tribunal that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see Judgment 2414, consideration 24)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414

    Keywords:

    contract; decision; fixed-term; grounds; patere legem; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3240


    115th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant did not take issue with the use of the wrong form for his performance appraisal or with the fact that his immediate supervisor did not conduct the evaluation, this does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to act in compliance with its own Staff Regulations, Staff Rules and Manual provisions implementing those rules (see Judgment 3177, under 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177

    Keywords:

    general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal; written rule;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "It is a well-established principle governing probation that in addition to “[identifying] in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken”, an organisation must also “give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy” (see Judgment 2788, under 1)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2788

    Keywords:

    organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; purpose; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3224


    115th Session, 2013
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070

    Keywords:

    condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 3185


    114th Session, 2013
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges her performance evaluation report, alleging personal prejudice and discrimination on the part of her direct supervisor.

    Consideration 5(b)

    Extract:

    "In principle, a supervisor cannot be criticised for recording the mistakes and errors of a subordinate with a view to preparing that person’s periodical performance evaluation, provided that the purpose of that action is, on the one hand, to ensure that the rating will be objective and, on the other hand, to increase the service’s efficiency by improving the performance of the person concerned. In the instant case, however, it is plain from the evidence that this practice was consistently applied to the complainant in order to stigmatise her shortcomings. [...] Her [evaluation] report is thus tainted with a serious flaw which justifies that it be set aside".

    Keywords:

    breach; equal treatment; flaw; organisation's interest; performance report; purpose; rating; supervisor; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;

    Consideration 7(b)

    Extract:

    "The rule that administrative acts cannot apply retroactively [...] prevents an international organisation from altering definitively established legal situations, for example by calling into question an appraisal of service rendered during an evaluation period prior to the adoption of the new rules, as occurred in the instant case."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; period; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 3085


    112th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    [I]t is true that deficiencies in the complainant’s performance were noted in the PMDS appraisals. However, as to the alleged assistance that was given to the complainant to improve her performance, other than broad assertions on the part of her supervisor that this was done, there is no evidence of any specific guidance or suggestions given to the complainant by Dr V. in terms of concrete steps or measures that the complainant should take to improve her performance in those areas of identified deficiencies and against which improvement in performance could be monitored and measured. Again, given its importance in assessing the overall suitability of the staff member, it would be expected that the specific directions and expectations would be documented. Equally, it would be expected that the guidance Dr V. provided to the complainant would also be documented.

    Keywords:

    judicial review; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3070


    112th Session, 2012
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; duty to inform; work appraisal;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination of employment; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3043


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >


 
Last updated: 14.10.2021 ^ top