Judgment No. 4794
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; performance evaluation; complaint dismissed
Consideration 9
Extract:
As for the complainant’s contention that the objection procedure before the Appraisals Committee set out in Circular No. 366 does not offer the same safeguards as the internal appeal procedure before the Appeals Committee, the complainant has not put forward any arguments showing the objection procedure to be flawed. The Tribunal recalls that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, [...] Judgment 4637, consideration 12, and Judgments 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 4408, 4637
Keywords
adversarial proceedings; rating; right to be heard
Considerations 10 & 12
Extract:
[T]he fact that the Appraisals Committee’s mandate is confined to determining whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not in itself render the procedure flawed, as the Tribunal also noted in the aforementioned Judgments 4637, consideration 13, and 4257, consideration 13. In addition, the Appraisals Committee’s restricted mandate in this regard does not limit the extent of the Tribunal’s judicial role in this area. It must be recalled that the Tribunal can exercise only a limited power of review in the matter of staff appraisals. In Judgment 4564, consideration 3, the Tribunal reiterated the following in this regard:
“[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 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 [...] body [...]”
Since the Tribunal does not have the ability to substitute its own assessment for that made by the persons or bodies responsible for assessing an employee’s merits, 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.
[...]
[T]he exercise that the complainant is asking the Tribunal to undertake with regard to the assessment of his productivity and his overall evaluation amounts in reality to a re-evaluation of his performance for 2016. However, that is a misconstruction of the Tribunal’s role, given the limited power of review the Tribunal may exercise in this matter according to its settled case law (see, for example, the aforementioned Judgment 4564, consideration 3, which was cited in the aforementioned Judgment 4637, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637
Keywords
rating; discretion; role of the tribunal
|
