Judgment No. 4792
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Considerations 3 & 11
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“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. [...]
[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.”
[…]
Regarding the third plea, the complainant’s argument to the effect that his 2016 performance assessment was not thoroughly done and was “extremely thin” implicitly invites the Tribunal into the realm of technical considerations regarding appraisal assessments that are not within its purview […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords
performance report; rating; judicial review; performance evaluation; role of the tribunal
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks the Tribunal to hold that the words “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” contained in Article 110a(4) of the Service Regulations “be held to have the same inclusive meaning as the long-established and recognised grounds for the Tribunal to review discretionary decisions, and that any attempt to interpret them in a more restrictive manner be deemed illegal”. However, this is, in substance, a general request for a declaration of the legal effect of Article 110a(4). It is not for the Tribunal to issue such declarations of law (see, for example, Judgments 4246, consideration 11, 4244, consideration 8, 4243, consideration 27, and 3876, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876, 4243, 4244, 4246
Keywords
declaration of law
|
