Judgment No. 722
1. THE COMPLAINT IS ALLOWED.
2. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE INSOFAR AS IT APPROVES THE COMMENTS UNDER I, A1 AND III IN THE REPORT FOR 1980-81 AND THOSE COMMENTS SHALL BE REVIEWED AS STATED IN 7 ABOVE.
3. THE EPO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 1,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COSTS.
"The impugned decision to approve the complainant's report for 1980 and 1981 is a discretionary one and may be set aside only on limited grounds such as a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or of law, failure to take account of relevant facts, abuse of authority or the drawing of mistaken conclusions from the evidence."
performance report; judicial review; application for quashing; discretion
"It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or if he can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer's opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period."
performance report; different appraisals; rebuttal; judicial review; mistaken conclusion; bias
At the start of 1980 and 1981 the complainant's production target was the same as the previous year; his productivity was the same in 1980 as in 1979 and higher in 1981. Under the circumstances, having attained his production target in 1980 and 1981, the complainant rightly alleges a discrepancy between the two reports. The Tribunal holds that the complainant was under no duty to increase his output of his own accord.
output; performance report; different appraisals; judicial review; mistaken conclusion