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 evaluation (661,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Performance evaluation
Total judgments found: 61

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >



  • Judgment 4262


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance management report for 2008.

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    It is convenient to note at the outset that the role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8). [...]
    To the extent the complainant invites the Tribunal to address whether there had been a misappraisal and to reappraise factual circumstances, it is an invitation the Tribunal, consistent with the case law, will not take up.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3228, 3692

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4258


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2006-2007.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that it is well established in the Tribunalís case law that assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement, signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere 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, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3006, consideration 7, and 3062, consideration 3, a case likewise concerning a staff report). Accordingly the role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3062, 3228, 3692

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4257


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has said in relation to its own role, the assessment of an employeeís merit during a specified period involves a value judgement (see, for example, Judgment 3692 [...]). By parity of reasoning, it would be reasonable for an organisation to adopt an approach that individuals (such as those comprising the Appraisals Committee) reviewing a staff report prepared by a staff memberís supervisor involving value judgements would not be as well-placed to make the same value judgements but, in order to guard against abuses of the process, would have authority to assess whether the report was arbitrary or discriminatory. And while staff would understandably prefer the membership of the Appraisals Committee to include staff representation and not be limited to management, the fact that it is so limited does not render its constitution in this way, unlawful.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    If an official involved in the preparation of a staff report is not impartial and that can be demonstrated by prior conduct, the fact that the conduct took place some years earlier does not render that prior conduct irrelevant when assessing partiality. Partiality is not necessarily periodic or episodic and can be enduring. In addition, it may be doubted that the Appraisals Committee could, without investigating the matter itself, simply rely on a short letter from management to satisfactorily deal with the question of partiality.

    Keywords:

    impartiality; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3228, 3692

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    Allied to these arguments is an argument of the EPO that the complainant is limited as to the subject matter he can challenge having regard to the fact that Article 110a of the Service Regulations introduced by CA/D 10/14 and Circular No. 366 are general decisions which are not amenable to challenge unless and until a decision is made detrimentally affecting the complainant.
    The last-mentioned argument of the EPO is founded on settled case law. The EPO cites Judgment 3291, consideration 8. A more recent illustration is Judgment 4075, consideration 4. However in the present case Article 110a of the Service Regulations introduced by CA/D 10/14 and Circular No. 366 have been applied in an individual decision affecting the complainant, namely the application of the new procedures to the review of his grievances about the terms of the 2014 staff report and the involvement in its preparation of individuals he alleges were not impartial. Accordingly, the complainant can challenge the lawfulness of those general decisions.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 4075

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4253


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    A staff member is entitled to have a regular appraisal. In the present case, this right, enshrined in Article 6.7 of the Staff Regulations, has been seriously violated for many years. The fact that the complainant did not complain about it before 2014 is not relevant, since he was not time-barred from challenging that irregularity when he filed his grievance. Similarly, the Tribunal will not take into account the fact that the absence of appraisals may not have had any impact on his career. Appraisals are not only intended to allow for promotion. They play an important role throughout a staff memberís career, including by allowing staff members to know how their superiors evaluate their work and to challenge that evaluation or improve their performance.

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; time bar;



  • Judgment 4252


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, challenges the decision not to award him a personal promotion in the 2011 exercise.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3321, consideration 11, the Tribunal noted that it is the ILOís practice ďin the absence of a performance appraisal, to deem the services of the official in question to be satisfactory during the relevant year in order to ensure that this situation cannot adversely affect that personĒ. In this case, the complainantís performance appraisal report for 2008-2009 was cancelled, and the Joint Panel was therefore wrong not to consider his performance as satisfactory in that period.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3321

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4185


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    To address the issue of the limits of the Tribunalís power of review it is convenient to cite the relevant parts of Judgment 4010, considerations 5 and 8, which read as follows:
    ď5. [...] The Tribunal recognises that Ďassessment of an employeeís 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 assessmentí (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).
    [...]
    8. [...] [T]he complainantís 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 complainantís 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 complainantís supervisor was entitled to form the view he had of the complainantís 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 supervisorís 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.Ē

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3378, 3692, 3842, 3945, 4010

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the fact that he was not heard by the Reports Committee vitiates the impugned decision. The Tribunal notes, however, that according to its own rules of procedure, the Reports Committee is under no obligation to conduct hearings. In any event, the complainant submitted full written documentation regarding the review of his performance appraisal report. In its recommendations to the Director of the Centre, the Reports Committee noted that the complainant was invited to be interviewed, but as he was absent on leave it then asked that he submit his observations in writing. The complainant requested a later deadline for submission, but then did not submit anything within the extended deadline. This, in the Tribunalís view, satisfied the requirement for due process.

    Keywords:

    due process; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Regarding the complainantís allegation that the documentation provided by HRS to the Reports Committee was incomplete, the Tribunal observes from the submissions that HRS had removed annexes provided by the complainant which contained personal and private third-party information unrelated to the complainantís performance of his duties, as well as unauthorized copies of official and confidential information. HRS, however, did attach the full list of the documents and offered to provide the documents themselves at the request of the Reports Committee, subject to the explicit authorization of the persons concerned. The Reports Committee agreed with the position of the Chief of HRS not to circulate all the files containing personal and private information as they could not be disclosed without the prior consent of the officials concerned. It noted that ď[w]hile it was the officialís right to add his observations to the appraisal as foreseen by the Staff Regulations and procedures, its submission should also respect the Centreís rules and proceduresĒ. The Tribunal considers that the documents which were not forwarded were irrelevant to the question of the validity of the complainantís performance appraisal report.

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; performance evaluation;



  • 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 9

    Extract:

    The complainant will be awarded 5,000 euros given the doubtless importance to the complainant of receiving the appraisal in a timely manner, particularly having regard to the impending reorganisation and his need to equip himself to secure a position within the reorganised Registry.

    Keywords:

    moral injury; performance evaluation;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4172


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4170


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reports for the 2010-2011 biennium and the decisions to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2012, to withhold that increment on that date and to not renew her fixed-term appointment for unsatisfactory service.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that international organisations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisal and whether to renew a fixed-term appointment. Such decisions are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1583, consideration 2, 3039, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, and 4062, consideration 6, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 3039, 4010, 4062

    Keywords:

    discretion; performance evaluation;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in CAP 403 in the presentation of the partiesí arguments, and the Appeals Board noted that the complainant ďmakes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] reportĒ. However, the Appeals Board failed to respond to these allegations, perhaps considering the flaws that it had identified sufficient to substantiate its recommendations. The Appeals Board did not therefore ascertain whether the complainantís unfavourable performance rating and the non-renewal of her appointment owed to prejudice or other extraneous factor, as required under paragraph 5(b) of the Boardís Statutes, which was hence breached. Furthermore, that provision merely illustrates the general principles that apply in this matter, regardless of whether they are laid down in any rule or regulation.

    Keywords:

    bias; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4169


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance report for the 2008-2009 biennium and the decision to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2011.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that international organisations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisal. Such decisions are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1583, consideration 2, 3039, consideration 7, or 4010, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 3039, 4010

    Keywords:

    discretion; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4157


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the moral injury she suffered because her evaluation for 2013 was irregular and contests the partial modification thereof.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    In the context of an appeal against the reviewing officerís unfavourable evaluation, the Director General was not entitled to change the direct supervisorís assessment relating to a point which was favourable to the complainant and which was not challenged by her, nor a fortiori to amend the evaluation report itself by replacing the supervisorís assessment with his own, without indicating that the new assessment was not the one initially made.

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; moral injury; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4156


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the moral injury she suffered because her evaluation for 2012 was irregular.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; moral injury; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4144


    128th Session, 2019
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the ďpartly satisfactoryĒ overall rating in his performance evaluation report.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4115


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The disciplinary proceedings were initiated before the appraisal period concluded. In Judgment 3224 the Tribunal said at consideration 7 that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff memberís unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. The decision to commence disciplinary proceedings can, for the purposes of the application of this principle, be characterised as an adverse decision. Even if the EPO believed that nothing was going to change, in terms of the complainantís conduct, between the time the disciplinary proceedings were commenced and the conclusion of the appraisal period a little over a month later, it was nonetheless obliged to complete the assessment of the complainantís performance in accordance with Circular No. 366 before initiating the disciplinary proceedings.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; due process; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4072


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

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
    In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards his past performance, the complainant was unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of his evaluation referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor was he informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of his post, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with him. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that he did not meet the requirements in question, the complainant was not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that his consent was vitiated.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recognizes that international organizations have the discretion to manage their performance management objectives but highlights that they must do so using the tools they have in the manner in which they are designed (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).
    [...]
    In the present case, the Global Fund sought to use a tool (the performance improvement plan) which is explicitly designed to correct identified underperformance, in order to address an issue of potential future underperformance. The Tribunal finds that this inappropriate use of the PIP constitutes a misuse of authority which rendered the process non-transparent and arbitrary (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority; performance evaluation; work appraisal;



  • 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 16

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recognizes that international organizations have the discretion to manage their performance management objectives but highlights that they must do so using the tools they have in the manner in which they are designed (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).
    [...]
    In the present case, the Global Fund sought to use a tool (the performance improvement plan) which is explicitly designed to correct identified underperformance, in order to address an issue of potential future underperformance. The Tribunal finds that this inappropriate use of the PIP constitutes a misuse of authority which rendered the process non-transparent and arbitrary (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority; performance evaluation; work appraisal;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [U]nder the Tribunalís 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;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
    In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards their past performance, the complainants were unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of their evaluations referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor were the complainants informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of their posts, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with them. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that they did not meet the requirements in question, the complainants were not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that their consent was vitiated.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4062


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    With respect to the complainant, it is true that the Organization had prepared a performance improvement plan, for which paragraphs 16 et seq. of item 14.4 of the Human Resources Manual provide in the event that a staff memberís performance is deemed unsatisfactory, which was implemented over a period of three months, from March to June 2013. However, the evidence shows that as the complainantís direct supervisor was not sufficiently available, the requirements of the plan were not fully observed. Indeed, whereas the plan provided for, in particular, weekly meetings between the supervisor and the complainant
    in order to define her objectives, the Organization does not seriously dispute that these meetings were not actually held since, apart form the meeting convened for the final assessment, only two meetings between these two persons on the implementation of the plan were organised, on 29 April and 9 July 2013.
    It follows from the foregoing that the complainant did not receive the regular feedback from her supervisors that she would have needed in this case in order to substantially improve the quality of her performance.

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;

    Considerations 8 and 12

    Extract:

    The evidence, and in particular the hearing before the Reports Board and deliberations of the Appeals Board, as presented in the
    respective opinions of these two collegial bodies, shows that at the material time there were serious internal communication shortcomings in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, to which the complainant was assigned.
    It appears, and the evidence also shows, that this situation was to a large extent due to the great number of responsibilities and particularly complex tasks that had been assigned to that Section. This had in fact prompted the complainantís direct supervisor, on 20 March 2013, to report his superiors on the Sectionís ď[i]ntolerable workloadĒ*in a memorandum especially intended for that purpose, in which he emphasised that the resulting working conditions were extremely difficult for himself and for all staff members concerned.
    Such a working environment is clearly detrimental to the quality of staff performance and makes it particularly difficult, a fortiori, for employees who are not providing satisfactory services to improve the quality of their performance.
    [...]
    It follows from these provisions, which, moreover, merely state general principles that apply to any professional appraisal procedure, that particular circumstances such as a serious lack of communication between an employee and her/his supervisors, or extraordinary pressure on the service that an employee is working in, resulting from an unbearable collective workload, must be taken into account in assessing the performance of a staff member.

    Keywords:

    general principle; performance evaluation; 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 Tribunalís consideration of the complainantís performance appraisals for 2012 is to identify the principles which are applicable. The principles are well settled. The Tribunal recognises that ďassessment of an employeeís 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 assessmentĒ (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 complainantís 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 complainantís 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 complainantís supervisor was entitled to form the view he had of the complainantís 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 supervisorís 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 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 Tribunalís 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 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 14

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled by the Tribunalís 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 memberís 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;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The complainant has not provided any substantive, cogent evidence proving that his line managerís actions or statements belittled or humiliated him and that he therefore suffered harassment. The investigation conducted by the mediator did reveal the existence of considerable tension between the complainant and his line manager, which had impaired their professional relations and had ultimately created a strained working atmosphere. However, the facts established by the mediator, viewed in isolation or as a whole, do not lead the Tribunal to arrive at a different conclusion than that reached by him, as summarised in consideration 17 [...].

    Keywords:

    evidence; harassment; performance evaluation;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.12.2022 ^ top