Judgment No. 4731
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her staff report for the period 2008-2009.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
As for the complainant’s claim for the revision of some of the comments in the final staff report, the Tribunal notes firstly that it is difficult to understand how the complainant could have been adversely affected by those comments as such, given that she does not, in any case, dispute the “good” ratings ultimately awarded to her under those headings. Above all, however, in requesting the Tribunal to review and rewrite some of the comments that appear under two of the headings in her staff report, the complainant plainly misunderstands the nature of the review with which the Tribunal is tasked. It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment (see Judgment 4564, consideration 2). In the matter of staff appraisal, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review (see, for example, Judgment 4637, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein), which does not involve reassessment of performance (see also Judgments 4258, consideration 2, and 4257, consideration 3). It is clear from consideration 3 of Judgment 4564 that:
“The Tribunal will [...] 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. Regarding the rating of EPO employees, those criteria are the more stringent because the Office has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a joint body whose members are directly familiar with the workings of the Office (see, for example, Judgments 1688, consideration 5, 3062, consideration 3, 3228, consideration 3, 3268, consideration 9, 3692, consideration 8, and 4258, consideration 2).”
The Tribunal has already indicated that a request for a staff report to be amended which does not meet these criteria can only be dismissed (see, to that effect, Judgments 4564, consideration 2, and 4258, considerations 2 and 3). The same applies to a request for amendment which does not concern the final rating given in the disputed staff report but relates to the wording of the observations and/or comments which formed the basis for that rating, especially where the rating is not challenged by the employee in question. In Judgment 3692, consideration 8, the Tribunal also stated that the limitation on its 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): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4257, 4258, 4564, 4637
Keywords
rating; role of the tribunal
|
