Judgment No. 3945
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.
performance report; complaint dismissed
Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 2837, under 3, and 3420, under 10, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal will consider any additional plea the complainant has made that may be relevant only to support her claims concerning her 2013 performance evaluation, which is the only receivable aspect of the present complaint.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3420
new claim; receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; new plea
[T]he Tribunal’s case law states that a complainant may make a claim for consequential relief which was not made in the internal proceedings. Under that case law, claims for moral damages can be treated as consequential relief and thus are not subject to the requirement to exhaust internal remedies (see Judgment 3871, consideration 18). Regarding the claim for costs, the Tribunal has accepted that only a claim for costs with respect to the proceedings before the Tribunal may be receivable (see Judgment 3421, under 2(a)).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3421, 3871
moral injury; internal remedies exhausted; exception; costs
The basic applicable principles where a performance appraisal is challenged have been stated as follows, for example in Judgment 3692, consideration 8:
“As the Tribunal has consistently held, 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 ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene in this area 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, for example, Judgment 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the rating given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that rating.”
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692
performance report; judicial review