ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Performance report (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Performance report
Total judgments found: 148

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

  • Judgment 4234


    129th Session, 2020
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As to the errors and omissions in the management of staff files which were referred to in the performance appraisal reports, these were professional shortcomings. Such shortcomings cannot be equated with misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, 1208, consideration 2, and 3853, consideration 6). Misconduct involves a breach of the duties of an international civil servant in respect of conduct which may trigger disciplinary proceedings and lead to a disciplinary measure. That is not the case for professional shortcomings, which may give rise to various administrative measures, such as a reminder of the applicable rules, a note in a personal file, an unfavourable appraisal or even the non-renewal or termination of a contract (see, for example, Judgment 1405, consideration 4).
    The professional shortcomings mentioned in the performance appraisal reports – the last of which led to a 95 per cent downwards adjustment in the complainant’s annual merit bonus – could not give rise to a disciplinary measure.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1405, 3853

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report;



  • Judgment 4229


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the World Food Programme, challenges the decision to maintain the decision not to renew his contract, and to award him material and moral damages instead of reinstatement.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In the Tribunal’s view, it was mistaken for the impugned decision to rely on the fact that the complainant’s 2011 and 2012 PACE appraisal reports gave him an “unsatisfactory” overall rating, and were not revised to satisfactory, as well as concerns that were stated in the complainant’s probationary appraisal (which actually gave a satisfactory rating), as bases for finding that his reinstatement was not warranted. Accordingly, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it denied reinstatement. However, inasmuch as the complainant held a fixed-term appointment that expired on 3 June 2013 rather than a continuing appointment, and given the time that has passed, the Tribunal considers that it is not appropriate to order his reinstatement (see, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; reinstatement;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned decision, the Tribunal considers that the award of 70,000 euros, which the Organization paid to the complainant for the lost opportunity to be considered for renewal, was reasonable. Accordingly, it will be unnecessary to award him any further sum in this regard. Although in the impugned decision the Director-General purported to “set aside” the decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the fact remains that the complainant was separated from service without a valid reason and was not reinstated. It is perhaps this, above all, that justifies the significant amount of damages awarded to him by the Director-General. There is no other basis for awarding further damages for the invalid 2012 PACE appraisal report and the unlawful decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment.

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; formal flaw; loss of opportunity; material damages; non-renewal of contract; performance report; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 4181


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the failure by the ICC to complete his performance appraisal in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    There is no legal ground for cancelling the performance appraisal report merely on the basis that the appraisal was not completed in a timely manner.

    Keywords:

    performance report;



  • Judgment 4071


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, performance appraisals are the only criterion of performance where international civil servants are concerned (see Judgment 2544, consideration 8) and no account may be taken of an ad hoc assessment conducted in parallel to the statutory performance evaluation (see Judgment 3436, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2544, 3436

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4010


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: 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.

    Considerations 5-8

    Extract:

    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.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3378, 3692, 3842, 3945

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; discretion; performance evaluation; performance report;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance report;



  • Judgment 3997


    126th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his 2012 performance evaluation.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; performance report;



  • Judgment 3945


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; performance report;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    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.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692

    Keywords:

    judicial review; performance report;



  • Judgment 3922


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.

    Considerations 5 & 12

    Extract:

    With respect to the complainant’s challenge to her 2012 performance evaluation, the basic principles which guide the Tribunal where there is such a challenge were 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.”
    [...]
    It is further found that the review process was tainted with procedural irregularity because, as the complainant contends, she was denied the full list of persons who were requested to give feedback for that exercise. That process was also tainted with procedural irregularity because the complainant was denied access to their synthesized feedback.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3692

    Keywords:

    judicial review; performance report;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report;

    Considerations 13-14

    Extract:

    Paragraph 3 under the heading “Performance Feedback” in Annex VII of the Handbook relevantly states as follows:
    “Feedback is collected over the performance cycle [...] from multiple sources, such as colleagues on the team, peers from outside the employee’s division/department who have worked with the employee on specific tasks or projects, managers, subordinates and external stakeholders, as applicable. The selection of additional feedback givers is coordinated with the employee. The line manager selects, with the employee’s input, the group of feedback givers in order to obtain a balanced view about the performance of the employee being evaluated. Where there is no agreement on the list of feedback givers, the HR Business Partner shall facilitate resolution.”
    This provision is intended to ensure that feedback in the performance evaluation process is objective, transparent, and well informed. It does not contemplate that feedback will be sought from a person who is not familiar with the work of a subject employee. The ejusdem generis rule operates in its interpretation to ensure that “managers, subordinates and external stakeholders”, as well as “additional feedback givers”, are persons who are familiar with the subject employee’s work during the relevant performance evaluation cycle.
    [...] However, the Tribunal accepts the complainant’s assertions, which the Fund has not denied, that two other persons with whom she did not work during 2012 gave feedback for the review process and that she had no input into their selection as feedback givers.

    Keywords:

    interpretation; performance report;



  • Judgment 3911


    125th Session, 2018
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Precedent [...] has it that where a staff member fails to challenge an appraisal report by lodging an internal appeal against it within the stipulated time, the report becomes final and may not be called into question, even with regard to its lawfulness (see, for example, Judgments 3059, under 7, and 3666, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3059, 3666

    Keywords:

    performance report; time bar;



  • Judgment 3879


    124th Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “unsatisfactory” overall rating of his performance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report;



  • Judgment 3866


    124th Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to confirm her appointment at the end of her probationary period.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    It is for the organization to objectively assess the professional performance and behaviour of its employee. Seeking the views of colleagues undermines the objectivity of the assessment. It also shows a lack of respect for the concerned employee and it is humiliating for her or him to know that colleagues are being asked to assess her or his performance and behaviour.

    Keywords:

    humiliation; performance report;



  • Judgment 3853


    124th Session, 2017
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory service.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [I]f the O[rganisation] intended to terminate his contract for reasons of unsatisfactory service, [the complainant] should have been informed either through a negative performance appraisal report or precise warnings that his service had to improve (see, for example, Judgments 1872, consideration 9, 3224, consideration 7, and 3252, consideration 8). This is a manifestation of the duty of an organisation to act in good faith towards its staff (see, for example, Judgment 3613, consideration 27).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1872, 3224, 3252, 3613

    Keywords:

    duty of care; performance report;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The Tribunal rejects the complainant’s argument that he was entitled to a performance appraisal concerning his service. Plainly that was not appropriate in the circumstances where the issue was not service at a less than satisfactory level but rather no service because of absence.

    Keywords:

    performance report;



  • Judgment 3846


    124th Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant objects to the working conditions to which she was subjected during a secondment and contends that the ITU breached the rules on performance appraisals.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal draws attention to the fact that every international civil servant has the right to be informed of her or his supervisors’ appraisal of her or his service (see Judgments 1394, under 5, 2067, under 10, or 3171, under 30). The organisation therefore has a duty to evaluate an official’s work in a timely manner and any failure to do so is a breach of its obligations to its staff.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1394, 2067, 3171

    Keywords:

    performance report;



  • Judgment 3842


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her 2007 performance appraisal report.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The principles governing the Tribunal’s consideration of challenges to staff performance appraisal reports are well settled. Indeed, they are discussed in Judgment 3378, consideration 6. The Tribunal recognises that such reports are discretionary and will set aside or amend 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. Nonetheless the Tribunal insists upon observance of procedures established to evaluate performance.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3378

    Keywords:

    discretion; performance report;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; performance report;



  • Judgment 3713


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the reference value, used by the EPO to plan and measure productivity, introduced for patent examiners working in their technical field.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13). In the present case, there is nothing to prevent the complainants from challenging, through the applicable internal procedures and ultimately before the Tribunal if need be, a staff report in which their productivity has been measured by reference to the contested value.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; performance report;



  • Judgment 3697


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his internal appeal against the written notification issued to him by his Director in the context of the performance appraisal process.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; final decision; performance report;



  • Judgment 3692


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant who, at the material time, was working as a patent examiner, objects to three of his staff reports, submits that he was subjected to harassment and challenges the rejection of his request for an independent examination of several of his dissenting opinions on patent applications.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal can only find that, although ultimately the complainant obtained the rating “good” for his productivity, the comment accompanying that rating detracted from it. In this respect the disputed staff report is open to the same criticism as the report censured by the Tribunal in Judgment 3268, concerning an almost identical case brought by another official of the EPO. This report is therefore unlawful [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3268

    Keywords:

    performance report;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that if the rules of an international organisation require that an appraisal form must be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by her or his second-level supervisor, this is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared between these two authorities and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member’s skills and performance. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the competent second-level supervisor should take care to ascertain that the assessment submitted for her or his approval does not require modification (see Judgment 320, under 12, 13 and 17, or more recently Judgments 3171, under 22, and 3239, under 15). Of course, this check must be carried out with particular vigilance when the assessment occurs in a context where it is especially to be feared that the supervisor making it might lack objectivity and, a fortiori, when it takes place, as it did in the instant case, in a situation of overt antagonism (see Judgment 3171, under 23).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 320, 3171, 3239

    Keywords:

    organisation's duties; performance evaluation; performance report; supervisor;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; performance report;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [A]ssessment 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.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006

    Keywords:

    performance report;



  • Judgment 3679


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance report;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [T]he reason for not renewing a contract must be valid, and where, as in the present case, the non-renewal is for unsatisfactory performance, the staff member must be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his performance and be given reasonable time to improve it as an aspect of the organization’s duty of care and good faith.

    Keywords:

    non-renewal of contract; performance report;



  • Judgment 3678


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him at the end of his probation period.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] disputes the assessment of his performance during his probation period which led to his dismissal. It is firmly established in the case law that the Tribunal has only a limited power of review over such a decision. Thus, the decision will be set aside if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it rests on a mistake of fact or of law, or if there has been abuse of authority, inter alia (see, for example, Judgments 987, under 2, 1817, under 5, or 2715, under 5). But as far as the assessment of the merits of an official is concerned, the Tribunal will not substitute its own opinion for that of the executive head of the organisation or interfere with it unless it finds that that that person has drawn clearly wrong conclusions from the evidence.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 987, 1817, 2715

    Keywords:

    judicial review; performance report;



  • Judgment 3670


    122nd Session, 2016
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her Staff Performance Appraisal report, as well as the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; performance report; work appraisal;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.09.2021 ^ top