Judgment No. 4010
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.
performance report; non-renewal of contract; complaint dismissed
A convenient starting point in the Tribunal’s consideration of the complainant’s performance appraisals for 2012 is to identify the principles which are applicable. The principles are well settled. The Tribunal recognises that “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” (see Judgment 3945, consideration 7). The Tribunal will set aside a report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 7, 3692, consideration 8, 3378, consideration 6, 3006, consideration 7, and 2834, consideration 7). [...]
[T]he complainant’s analysis does not reveal any factual errors that might have had a material effect on the ultimate conclusions about his performance. While the analysis reflects the complainant’s view, understandably favourable to him, of how he had performed in relation to those seven activities, it does not reveal an error of the type that would warrant intervention by the Tribunal having regard to the principles discussed in consideration 5 above. The complainant’s supervisor was entitled to form the view he had of the complainant’s performance and it was not flawed by any material factual error. It was a view based on evaluation and assessment of available material. While the complainant disagrees with that evaluation and assessment, it was within the supervisor’s discretionary power to make that evaluation and assessment, and there is no basis established by the complainant for reviewing the exercise of that power and for setting aside the performance appraisal which was, in part, based on it.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3378, 3692, 3842, 3945
competence of tribunal; performance report; discretion; performance evaluation
The Appeals Committee’s report in the present matter, as it was in Judgment 3969, consideration 11, is a mostly balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3969
internal appeals body; deference
The complainant bears the burden of establishing bias and has failed to do so (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753
burden of proof; bias