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

Rating (288,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Rating
Total judgments found: 23

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 3268


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the establishment of a staff report containing negative comments.

    Considerations 9, 12 and 13

    Extract:

    "Assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the marks given to the employee have been worked out in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for these bodies’ assessment of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore interfere in this field only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 2834, under 7, and 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the mark given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that mark in the report."
    "The restraint which the Tribunal must exercise [...] does not mean that it can disregard the fact that the comment accompanying the complainant’s productivity rating considerably detracts from the marking “good” and that the countersigning officer’s comments underscore that effect. [...] It follows from the foregoing that the [...] disputed staff report must be set aside."

    Keywords:

    decision quashed; discretion; insurance benefit; performance evaluation; rating; supervisor;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    limits; performance report; rating;



  • 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.

    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;



  • 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; complaint allowed in part; condition; decision quashed; equal treatment; flaw; general principle; international civil servant; misconduct; organisation's interest; performance report; purpose; rating; supervisor; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3006


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

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Case remitted to the President of the Office for review of the complainant's effective date of promotion on the basis of his amended performance appraisal.
    "Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if 'the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834

    Keywords:

    discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The principle of equality requires that all candidates in a given year be assessed by reference to staff reports for the same period. It is clear from Judgment 2221 that the principle also requires that if the 'merits' of a candidate for promotion are subsequently upgraded, the question of promotion must be considered on the basis of what would have happened if the upgraded marking had been considered previously."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2221

    Keywords:

    candidate; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2917


    109th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7(d)

    Extract:

    "By twice giving the complainant a rating [- rating 0 -] that is not envisaged in the [relevant texts], the supervisor breached the rules applicable to the process of assessing a staff member's performance. Furthermore, this kind of rating is likely to leave the staff member concerned feeling that his competencies or performance in the areas assessed are so substandard that they do not even merit an assessment on the part of his supervisor. Such conduct may be expected to foster in the staff member a deep sense of personal inadequacy. As such a rating has no basis in law and is contrary to the rules of conduct applicable to the personal relations between international organisations and their staff, it cannot be upheld."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; organisation's duties; performance report; rating; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2809


    106th Session, 2009
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant impugns the decision not to award him an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
    "The Tribunal has consistently held that a good performance record does not in itself justify selecting one candidate rather than another for a promotion or for the award of a post. The opinion of the author of an annual appraisal cannot be substituted for the conclusions of a selection board which, in this case, comprised representatives of the department head concerned, two human resources coordinators and two experts from another department, and which was responsible for selecting the candidates who had to be ranked as the best for the award of an indefinite contract [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2040

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; decision; performance report; promotion; qualifications; rating; selection board;



  • Judgment 1548


    81st Session, 1996
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    The grounds for non-renewal being deterioration from 1990 in the complainant's performance and conduct, "the burden is on the Organization to show that its decision rested upon proper appraisal of the complainant's performance. [...] All the reports up to September 1990 having been satisfactory, the Organization's failure to have proper appraisal reports made since then is a flaw in the decision."

    Keywords:

    breach; burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; different appraisals; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; period; procedural flaw; rating; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 1221


    74th Session, 1993
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks the quashing of an unfavourable assessment of her performance. "The assessment of her shows neither any mistake nor abuse of authority. [...] Since she has shown no significant mistake in [her generally negative] assessment and since the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review over administrative decisions of that kind, her claims under this head must fail."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; performance report; rating; report;



  • Judgment 1170


    73rd Session, 1992
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant disputes the method for reckoning the output of a certain category of officials. "The method is not a matter for the Promotion Board; else it would find itself revising ratings in staff reports. In point of fact there is nothing discriminatory about the method. [...] Be that as it may, if the complainant objected to the reckoning of his own output the proper course was for him to challenge his staff report and the ratings it contained. He did not do so."

    Keywords:

    equal treatment; performance report; promotion; promotion board; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 1144


    72nd Session, 1992
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4, 5 and 6

    Extract:

    The complainant, who has objections to his performance report, contends that the EPO's reporting system does not treat all officials on the same basis inasmuch as one group of officials may complete a shortened report and because the system is in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that everyone shall be entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. But the Tribunal considers that "the complainant has not shown that he himself has been adversely affected because staff who belong to another category have [the aforementioned] option." Moreover, "the Convention puts obligations on signatory States, and it is not apparent that it is applicable [...]. At all events, even supposing that the Convention as such was applicable, the Tribunal's answer to the plea would be that the principles underlying Article 6 are fully recognised in the Service Regulations".

    Keywords:

    enforcement; equal treatment; international instrument; lack of injury; performance report; rating; right to reply;



  • Judgment 920


    65th Session, 1988
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "it is clear form the evidence before the tribunal that the complainant's objections to the report are unfounded. he knew already, because [his supervisor] had often told him, that his performance was considered poor. the period covered by the report was not too short because the minimum period a report may cover is three months."

    Keywords:

    performance report; period; rating; rebuttal; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 880


    64th Session, 1988
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    the complainant objected to being given a general rating couched in the form "3, albeit inclining to 2". the tribunal considers that: "reporting officers may not, to suit themselves, make up vague in-between ratings of their own but must put against each head of assessment one of the marks on the scale. if they do want to qualify it the proper way is to add comments."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 723


    58th Session, 1986
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "the director-general's implied endorsement of the performance report, his postponement of the increment and the transfer are all discretionary decisions and, moreover, ones that fall within an area in which the tribunal will not ordinarily interfere."

    Keywords:

    discretion; increment withheld; judicial review; performance report; rating; transfer; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 438


    45th Session, 1980
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2 and 10

    Extract:

    the determination of an assessment falls within the discretionary authority of the director of the organisation. the tribunal may not substitute its own assessment for the decision taken by the director in the exercise of his discretion.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; discretion; judicial review; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 352


    41st Session, 1978
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "in exercising his authority the director-general is not bound by the recommendations of the advisory bodies. he is indeed quite free to determine the general assessment in the light of the whole file and even to alter the assessments agreed on by the official's own supervisors. the bodies which advise the director-general therefore enjoy just as much freedom as he to assess the official's performance. ... it is therefore open to them, if they wish, to dissent from an opinion shared by [the supervisors]..."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; discretion; executive head; performance report; rating; supervisor; work appraisal;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "the impugned decision, which relates to the assessment of an official's performance, is of a discretionary nature. hence the tribunal may quash it only if..." (etc.)

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 300


    38th Session, 1977
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "it is true that marking may partly depend on subjective factors which have little or nothing to do with actual performance, but the complainants have not shown that they suffered on that account."

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; discretion; judicial review; lack of evidence; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 283


    37th Session, 1976
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "...the tribunal must determine whether the performance report given to the complainant was in all respects properly established, but it may not substitute its own opinion for that of the administration on the quality of the staff member's performance nor exercise any power of review over the administration's assessment."

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 282


    37th Session, 1976
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "a clear distinction must be drawn between the quality of a staff member's work, as reflected in such things as performance reports and promotion, and specific facts or a general attitude at variance with his duties as a staff member and warranting disciplinary action."

    Keywords:

    conduct; elements; fitness for international civil service; promotion; rating; staff member's duties; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 232


    32nd Session, 1974
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    as with any appraisal by the director-general of an official's performance, the tribunal may "interfere with the impugned decision only if it was taken without authority, is irregular in form or tainted by procedural irregularities or by illegality, or is based on incorrect facts, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or, again, if conclusions which are clearly false have been drawn from the documents in the dossier, or finally, if authority has been exercised for purposes foreign to the organization's interests."

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; performance report; rating; rebuttal; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 197


    29th Session, 1972
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    reports on each staff member must be made in the first place by his immediate supervisor, who is the best qualified to make an appraisal. this principle cannot be applied "in some units which, because of their nature, activities or the very form of their organization, a small number of officials are associated in a specific common task. it may be conducive to the efficiency of such units for the chief to report directly on all the staff members with whom he is in close and continuous collaboration in the exercise of their duties."

    Keywords:

    competence; probation; probation report; rating; supervisor; work appraisal;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top