Judgment No. 4144
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “partly satisfactory” overall rating in his performance evaluation report.
performance evaluation; complaint dismissed
Finally, the Tribunal deals with the plea under (h) according to which the complainant’s 2016 PER was flawed as he did not have a specific job description on the basis of which his performance could be assessed, as provided for in Staff Rule 105.1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Organization should have a specific job description for each post and that the performance should be evaluated on the basis of the duties and responsibilities as set forth in the job description, but it also notes that a general job classification standard, approved by the Director-General, exists. Indeed, Staff Rule 107.3 provides that “[t]he duties and responsibilities of each post in grades 1-12 inclusive shall be evaluated on the basis of job classification standards approved by the Director-General”. The complainant’s 2016 performance was evaluated based on the job classification standard for his post and grade and on the work objectives indicated by the supervisor. Moreover his underperformance, relating mostly to his interactions with his colleagues and supervisors, was not linked to the performance of specific duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the JAB’s finding that the absence of a comprehensive job description and/or specific benchmarks in this case does not constitute a procedural flaw affecting the lawfulness of the 2016 PER is correct.
post classification; judicial review; discretion; limits
[A]s regards the pleas under (e) and (f), the Tribunal considers that those pleas challenge the substance of the evaluation, but they do not show that the contested assessment involved any reviewable error. The complainant merely proposes different evaluation criteria. The Tribunal 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 that of the bodies responsible for assessing 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 Judgment 3268, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3268
performance report; discretion