Performance (955,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Performance
Total judgments found: 9

• Judgment 4902

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  Given the limited scope of the power of review of the Tribunal on performance appraisals as constantly indicated in the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, considerations 2 and 3, and the case law cited therein), the fact that the complainant’s view of his performance is different than that of his supervisor is clearly not sufficient to set aside this evaluation and order that another one be undertaken.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
  

  Keywords:

  performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4901

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law has long recognized the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals. In this regard, in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, the Tribunal stated the following:
  “2. [T]he Tribunal observes that, in requesting that the Tribunal should itself determine the new ratings to be awarded under the various headings of the staff report concerned, 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. Consequently, as it is framed, the request for the staff report concerned to be amended can only be dismissed (see, to that effect, Judgment 4258, considerations 2 and 3, and the case law cited therein).
  The Tribunal may only set aside that staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit to the [organization concerned] the task of reviewing the assessment concerned in light of the grounds of its judgment, if it considers it necessary to make such an order within the limits of the restricted power of review which the Tribunal may exercise in this area, the scope of which will be reiterated below.
  3. As the Tribunal has repeatedly held, assessment 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. [...]”
  (See also Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11.)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
  

  Keywords:

  performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4840

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  [I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal disagrees with IOM’s assertion that the complaint is allegedly irreceivable (for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as the underlying appeal was not filed within the applicable deadline), insofar as it concerns the decisions, communicated to the complainant on 13 June 2019, to establish the PIP (including any alleged violation of the SES process) and to extend the complainant’s contract for a three-month period corresponding to the PIP’s duration. The Tribunal considers that a staff member may challenge the decision to subject her to a PIP in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the PIP process. In Judgment 3713, consideration 3, the Tribunal recalled that:
  “[I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13).” (See also Judgment 3890, consideration 5.)
  In the present case, the decision taken at the end of the PIP process was a decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract due to underperformance and this decision resulted in the complainant being separated from IOM. This being so, the Tribunal considers that the above cited case law from Judgments 3713, consideration 3, and 3890, consideration 5, is equally applicable in a case such as the present. And given that the complainant impugns her final contract extension and ultimate non-renewal, it is of no relevance whether the issue of her prior three-month extension is receivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198, 3713, 3890
  

  Keywords:

  final decision; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; step in the procedure; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  [A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
  It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Considerations 23-24

  Extract:

  [T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
  In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
  “As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’”
  Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
  

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
  “[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).” (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713
  

  Keywords:

  judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance; performance evaluation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4770

  
  137th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant’s previous period of unblemished service with the [Organization] was not, by itself, a mitigating factor (see Judgment 3083, consideration 20), even though in some cases it can be (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083, 4457
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; performance;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4678

  
  136th Session, 2023
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal recalls its well-established case law regarding decisions concerning staff performance appraisals and renewal of fixed-term appointments. Organizations have wide discretion in taking such decisions, which are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgment 4170, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein). Where the reason for not renewing a contract is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of a staff member, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of her or his service, the organization can base its decision only on an assessment carried out in compliance with established rules (see, in particular, Judgment 2991, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein). This presupposes that the person in question has been informed in advance of what is expected of her or him, in particular by the communication of a precise description of the objectives set (see Judgment 3148, consideration 25).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991, 3148, 4170
  

  Keywords:

  fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4543

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal recalls that under its settled case law, assessment 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. The Tribunal will set aside a performance evaluation report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 3692, consideration 8, 3842, consideration 7, and 4010, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692, 3842, 4010
  

  Keywords:

  discretion; performance; role of the tribunal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; performance;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4542

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; performance; probationary period;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4513

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to convert his appointment as a graduate when it expired and to terminate it.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is a discretionary decision, but if the decision rests on poor performance, the assessment of that performance has to be made in accordance with the rules established for that purpose; this is allied with an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see, in particular, Judgment 4289, under 7, and the case law cited therein). These principles are also applicable when, as in the present case, a decision is to be taken on whether to convert a graduate appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period or a limited period.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4289
  

  Keywords:

  non-renewal of contract; performance; short-term;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4502

  
  134th Session, 2022
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  As the excerpts from Judgment 4221, consideration 11, quoted [...] show, the classification of a post is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see also Judgment 4000, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000, 4221
  

  Keywords:

  performance; post classification;