Judgment No. 4716
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant’s request for oral proceedings is rejected as the Tribunal considers that the parties have presented sufficiently extensive and detailed submissions and documents to allow it to be properly informed of their arguments and of the relevant evidence. In any event, the contentions which the complainant raises turn essentially on questions of law, which render oral proceedings unnecessary.
Keywords
oral proceedings
Considerations 6 & 14
Extract:
Settled case law has it that supervisors enjoy wide discretion when assessing the performance of staff members and that, where a performance report is contested, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review. It will determine whether the reporting process is
vitiated by a formal or procedural flaw, an error of law or fact; whether a material fact was overlooked; whether there was a misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; or whether there was abuse of authority. The Tribunal has also stated that, as a performance assessment is a value judgement within the discretionary authority of the bodies mandated to conduct it in accordance with the relevant rules, it will not substitute its own opinion for assessments made by these bodies. The limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the mark given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that mark in the report. This is because a performance report serves no purpose unless a supervisor has full freedom to comment on performance. The supervisor’s independence and sense of fairness being presumed, it is for the complainant to provide evidence that the staff report is flawed (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 3268, consideration 9, 3252, consideration 6, 2400, consideration 3, 2318, consideration 4, 2064, consideration 4, and 880, consideration 4). Moreover, inasmuch as the complainant was a staff representative at the material time, it is convenient to recall the Tribunal’s statement, in consideration 19 of Judgment 3084, that an organisation must ensure that a staff member is not disadvantaged on the grounds of her or his participation in staff representation activities as the principle of freedom of association is infringed if a person is subject to a detriment or disability because of her or his activities within a staff association (see also Judgments 3414, consideration 4, and 2704, consideration 6).
[...]
[S]upervisors enjoy wide discretion when assessing the performance of staff members and that, where a performance report is contested, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 880, 2064, 2318, 2400, 2704, 3084, 3252, 3268, 3414, 4564
Keywords
rating; discretion; role of the tribunal
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he complainant has not discharged his burden to prove the existence of the practice on which he relies (see, for example, Judgments 3734, consideration 5, and 2702, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2702, 3734
Keywords
burden of proof; practice
|
