Judgment No. 4713
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016 be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure; report of the internal appeals body
Consideration 6
Extract:
Inasmuch as the Tribunal’s case law states that complainants can impugn a decision only if it directly affects them, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to them, they are not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action (see, for example, Judgment 4563, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4563
Keywords
general decision
Consideration 11
Extract:
As a precursor to considering the merits of the assessment of the complainant’s 2014 staff report, the Tribunal finds it convenient to repeat the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“[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 the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
“Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637
Keywords
rating; discretion; role of the tribunal
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant, who bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that her allegations of bias or partiality are well founded (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9), has not discharged that burden. Her case of bias, partiality or prejudice on the part of her reporting and countersigning officers is based essentially on disagreements between her and those officers on management decisions and instructions they issued, which the complainant saw as an interference in the work of her division and its processing of patent applications, among other things. In the Tribunal’s view, they do not amount to bias, partiality or prejudice, which disqualified those officers from carrying out their assessment of the complainant’s 2014 performance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543
Keywords
burden of proof; bias
|
