Judgment No. 2172
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE COMPLAINANT'S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 NOVEMBER 2000 IS ANNULLED AND IS TO BE REMOVED FROM HER PERSONAL FILE AND REPLACED BY A REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT JUDGMENT.
3. THE COMPLAINANT'S PERIOD OF PROBATION IS TO BE ENDED RETROACTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM 1 DECEMBER 2000 AND SHE IS TO RECEIVE ALL WITHIN-GRADE SALARY INCREASES DUE SINCE THAT DATE.
4. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT MORAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF 3,000 SWISS FRANCS.
5. IT SHALL PAY HER 1,500 FRANCS IN COSTS.
6. ALL OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
The organisation extended the complainant's probationary period and transferred her following an unfavourable performance appraisal report. She submits that her supervisors failed to observe the procedure for the completion of performance appraisal reports. The Tribunal considers that "even if her supervisor appeared to follow the proper procedure by sending her the appraisal report [...] before the second-level supervisor had signed it, in order for the procedure to be meaningful, the second-level supervisor should not have written her comments until the complainant's supervisor had answered the memorandum [in which the complainant contested her appraisal]. The process is not a dialogue if one party does not listen to another. in this case, the complainant's supervisor did not consider the complainant's comments when preparing the evaluation. The evidence thus supports the complainant's allegation that the proper procedure was not followed [...] the decision to extend the probationary period was based on a flawed appraisal and the complainant should have been confirmed in her post."
procedure before the tribunal; decision; reply; breach; transfer; work appraisal; performance report; different appraisals; period; post; probationary period; extension of contract; unsatisfactory service; supervisor; procedural flaw; mistake of fact; consequence