Performance report (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Performance report
Total judgments found: 177
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4716
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4715
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4714
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4713
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4638
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he exercise which the complainant invites the Tribunal to carry out with regard to his productivity targets, overall rating, certain allegedly wrong or incorrect figures and, in his view, inappropriate applications of the new method for processing patent applications known as “BEST” (Bringing Examination and Search Together) and the PAX calculation rules is essentially a fresh appraisal of his performance for 2015. However, that misconstrues the Tribunal’s role in this area in view of its limited power of review under its settled case law (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, and 3252, consideration 6, also cited in [...] Judgment 4637, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 4564, 4637
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4637
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 7
Extract:
With regard to all the complainant’s other claims, the EPO submits that the complaint is irreceivable since the complainant no longer has a cause of action. According to it, while the complainant had, to a limited extent, a cause of action to challenge his 2014 staff report at the time when he filed his complaint, that cause of action lapsed when he retired on the last day of the month in which he reached the age of 65 years, as provided for in Article 54(1)(a) of the Service Regulations. In the EPO’s view, since the complainant is retired and has stopped work permanently, with no chance of being reinstated or resuming his career, he is no longer eligible for any career progression, whether this be through step advancements, bonuses or promotions as provided for in Chapter 2 of Title III of the Service Regulations, which deals with professional development. The EPO therefore considers that he has no cause of action to request that the report in question be set aside.
However, the Tribunal observes that a staff member has, at the very least, a moral interest in challenging a report appraising her or his performance. Thus, contrary to the EPO’s submissions, the fact that the complainant has retired since the report was drawn up does not, in itself, deprive him of a cause of action. The EPO’s objection to receivability must therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; performance report; rating;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4564
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for the 2008-2009 exercise.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] observes that a staff report, the purpose of which is to assess an employee’s merits over a given period and which is drawn up according to the rules governing the evaluation exercise for the period in question, is an entirely separate document from previous staff reports. Consequently, a staff member cannot reasonably expect that favourable ratings that may previously have been awarded to her or him will automatically be maintained (see, for example, [...] Judgment 1688, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688
Keywords:
performance report; rating;
Judgment 4450
133rd Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of her probationary period for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant contends that the objectives were fully achieved, but this is her personal opinion and it cannot substitute the one expressed by her supervisors, who are expressly qualified to make such assessments. Nor shall the Tribunal substitute its own opinion to a discretionary decision, unless it reveals flaws in fact or law that in the present case are not demonstrated.
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4234
129th Session, 2020
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As to the errors and omissions in the management of staff files which were referred to in the performance appraisal reports, these were professional shortcomings. Such shortcomings cannot be equated with misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, 1208, consideration 2, and 3853, consideration 6). Misconduct involves a breach of the duties of an international civil servant in respect of conduct which may trigger disciplinary proceedings and lead to a disciplinary measure. That is not the case for professional shortcomings, which may give rise to various administrative measures, such as a reminder of the applicable rules, a note in a personal file, an unfavourable appraisal or even the non-renewal or termination of a contract (see, for example, Judgment 1405, consideration 4).
The professional shortcomings mentioned in the performance appraisal reports – the last of which led to a 95 per cent downwards adjustment in the complainant’s annual merit bonus – could not give rise to a disciplinary measure.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1405, 3853
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report;
Judgment 4229
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the World Food Programme, challenges the decision to maintain the decision not to renew his contract, and to award him material and moral damages instead of reinstatement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In the Tribunal’s view, it was mistaken for the impugned decision to rely on the fact that the complainant’s 2011 and 2012 PACE appraisal reports gave him an “unsatisfactory” overall rating, and were not revised to satisfactory, as well as concerns that were stated in the complainant’s probationary appraisal (which actually gave a satisfactory rating), as bases for finding that his reinstatement was not warranted. Accordingly, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it denied reinstatement. However, inasmuch as the complainant held a fixed-term appointment that expired on 3 June 2013 rather than a continuing appointment, and given the time that has passed, the Tribunal considers that it is not appropriate to order his reinstatement (see, for example, Judgment 4063, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; reinstatement;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned decision, the Tribunal considers that the award of 70,000 euros, which the Organization paid to the complainant for the lost opportunity to be considered for renewal, was reasonable. Accordingly, it will be unnecessary to award him any further sum in this regard. Although in the impugned decision the Director-General purported to “set aside” the decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the fact remains that the complainant was separated from service without a valid reason and was not reinstated. It is perhaps this, above all, that justifies the significant amount of damages awarded to him by the Director-General. There is no other basis for awarding further damages for the invalid 2012 PACE appraisal report and the unlawful decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment.
Keywords:
fixed-term; formal flaw; loss of opportunity; material damages; non-renewal of contract; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4181
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the failure by the ICC to complete his performance appraisal in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
There is no legal ground for cancelling the performance appraisal report merely on the basis that the appraisal was not completed in a timely manner.
Keywords:
performance report;
Judgment 4144
128th Session, 2019
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “partly satisfactory” overall rating in his performance evaluation report.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s regards the pleas under (e) and (f), the Tribunal considers that those pleas challenge the substance of the evaluation, but they do not show that the contested assessment involved any reviewable error. The complainant merely proposes different evaluation criteria. The Tribunal must ascertain whether the marks given to the employee have been worked out in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the bodies responsible for assessing the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore interfere in this field only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgment 3268, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3268
Keywords:
discretion; performance report;
Judgment 4071
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, performance appraisals are the only criterion of performance where international civil servants are concerned (see Judgment 2544, consideration 8) and no account may be taken of an ad hoc assessment conducted in parallel to the statutory performance evaluation (see Judgment 3436, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2544, 3436
Keywords:
performance evaluation; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 4010
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
A convenient starting point in the Tribunal’s consideration of the complainant’s performance appraisals for 2012 is to identify the principles which are applicable. The principles are well settled. The Tribunal recognises that “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” (see Judgment 3945, consideration 7). The Tribunal will set aside a 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, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 7, 3692, consideration 8, 3378, consideration 6, 3006, consideration 7, and 2834, consideration 7). [...]
[T]he complainant’s analysis does not reveal any factual errors that might have had a material effect on the ultimate conclusions about his performance. While the analysis reflects the complainant’s view, understandably favourable to him, of how he had performed in relation to those seven activities, it does not reveal an error of the type that would warrant intervention by the Tribunal having regard to the principles discussed in consideration 5 above. The complainant’s supervisor was entitled to form the view he had of the complainant’s performance and it was not flawed by any material factual error. It was a view based on evaluation and assessment of available material. While the complainant disagrees with that evaluation and assessment, it was within the supervisor’s discretionary power to make that evaluation and assessment, and there is no basis established by the complainant for reviewing the exercise of that power and for setting aside the performance appraisal which was, in part, based on it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3378, 3692, 3842, 3945
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; performance evaluation; performance report;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance report;
Judgment 3997
126th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his 2012 performance evaluation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance report;
Judgment 3945
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The basic applicable principles where a performance appraisal is challenged have been stated as follows, for example in Judgment 3692, consideration 8:
“As the Tribunal has consistently 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 assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene in this area only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s 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): 3692
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Considerations 5 & 12
Extract:
With respect to the complainant’s challenge to her 2012 performance evaluation, the basic principles which guide the Tribunal where there is such a challenge were stated as follows, for example, in Judgment 3692, consideration 8:
“As the Tribunal has consistently 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 assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene in this area only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the rating given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that rating.”
[...]
It is further found that the review process was tainted with procedural irregularity because, as the complainant contends, she was denied the full list of persons who were requested to give feedback for that exercise. That process was also tainted with procedural irregularity because the complainant was denied access to their synthesized feedback.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3692
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report;
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
Paragraph 3 under the heading “Performance Feedback” in Annex VII of the Handbook relevantly states as follows:
“Feedback is collected over the performance cycle [...] from multiple sources, such as colleagues on the team, peers from outside the employee’s division/department who have worked with the employee on specific tasks or projects, managers, subordinates and external stakeholders, as applicable. The selection of additional feedback givers is coordinated with the employee. The line manager selects, with the employee’s input, the group of feedback givers in order to obtain a balanced view about the performance of the employee being evaluated. Where there is no agreement on the list of feedback givers, the HR Business Partner shall facilitate resolution.”
This provision is intended to ensure that feedback in the performance evaluation process is objective, transparent, and well informed. It does not contemplate that feedback will be sought from a person who is not familiar with the work of a subject employee. The ejusdem generis rule operates in its interpretation to ensure that “managers, subordinates and external stakeholders”, as well as “additional feedback givers”, are persons who are familiar with the subject employee’s work during the relevant performance evaluation cycle.
[...] However, the Tribunal accepts the complainant’s assertions, which the Fund has not denied, that two other persons with whom she did not work during 2012 gave feedback for the review process and that she had no input into their selection as feedback givers.
Keywords:
interpretation; performance report;
Judgment 3911
125th Session, 2018
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Precedent [...] has it that where a staff member fails to challenge an appraisal report by lodging an internal appeal against it within the stipulated time, the report becomes final and may not be called into question, even with regard to its lawfulness (see, for example, Judgments 3059, under 7, and 3666, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3059, 3666
Keywords:
performance report; time bar;
Judgment 3879
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “unsatisfactory” overall rating of his performance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report;
Judgment 3866
124th Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to confirm her appointment at the end of her probationary period.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is for the organization to objectively assess the professional performance and behaviour of its employee. Seeking the views of colleagues undermines the objectivity of the assessment. It also shows a lack of respect for the concerned employee and it is humiliating for her or him to know that colleagues are being asked to assess her or his performance and behaviour.
Keywords:
humiliation; performance report;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
