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 3282
116th Session, 2014
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.
Consideration 5
Extract:
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 […].” [...] Consistent case law states that “[a] staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation” (see Judgment 2414, under 23).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2916
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3268
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the establishment of a staff report containing negative comments.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; limits; performance report; rating;
Consideration 14
Extract:
It will be incumbent upon the EPO to draw up a new staff report in which the phrase “within the lower limit of ‘good’” in section I(2)(i) of the report and the two sentences after the word “Agreed” in section VII of the report are deleted – and not replaced with equivalent terms.
Keywords:
performance report;
Judgment 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3257
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he Commission breached its own rules regarding the procedure by which the performance appraisal report, which contained the recommendation for the extension of the contract, was to be communicated to the Personnel Division. Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2) requires the proposal for the extension of the contract to be submitted to the Personnel Division with a justification of the recommendation that was stated in the proposal. The performance appraisal report was also to be submitted with them.
There are good reasons for this provision. The proposal containing the recommendation, the justification of the recommendation and the performance appraisal report, submitted together, is intended to provide a complete picture of the performance of a staff member. This in turn is to inform a decision which that Division, the PAP or the Executive Secretary may have been required to make."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2)
Keywords:
contract; enforcement; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; discretion; extension of contract; fixed-term; offer; performance report; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3253
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised that internal appeals are an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony (see, for example, Judgment 3184, consideration 15). Also, the internal appeal process is ordinarily an extremely significant element of the entire system of review of administrative decisions affecting the rights of staff employed by organisations which have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3222, consideration 9). Moreover, every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on his or her performance on which her or his career may depend (see, for example, Judgment 3241, consideration 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184, 3222, 3241
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report;
Judgment 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 3249
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint in which the complainant requested the establishment of a new version of his staff report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; delegated authority; performance report;
Judgment 3248
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint being almost identical to the previous one and the complainant having no new argument, the Tribunal considered the complaint to be irreceivable under the principle of res judicata.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; res judicata;
Judgment 3241
115th Session, 2013
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reviews for 2008 and 2009.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and may be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted. This is buttressed by the statement of principle in Judgment 466, under 3, that such matters may be so challenged since every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on her or his performance, on which her or his career will depend. However, such a decision must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not so challenged, the decision becomes final and cannot be reopened (see Judgment 3059, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 466, 3059
Keywords:
cause of action; internal remedies exhausted; performance evaluation; performance report; time limit;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; late filing; performance report;
Judgment 3240
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"Although the complainant did not take issue with the use of the wrong form for his performance appraisal or with the fact that his immediate supervisor did not conduct the evaluation, this does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to act in compliance with its own Staff Regulations, Staff Rules and Manual provisions implementing those rules (see Judgment 3177, under 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177
Keywords:
general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3239
115th Session, 2013
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal quashed the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract because it was taken on the basis of flawed performance evaluation reports.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report; termination of employment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that if the rules of an international organisation require that an appraisal form must be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned (in this case the Deputy Director, to whom the complainant reported) but also by his or her second-level supervisor (in this case the Director), this is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared between these two authorities and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member’s skills and performance. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the competent second-level supervisor should take care to ascertain that the assessment submitted for his or her approval does not require modification (see Judgment 320, under 12, 13 and 17, or more recently, Judgments 2917, under 9, and 3171, under 22). Of course, this check must be carried out with particular vigilance when the assessment occurs in a context where it is especially to be feared that the supervisor making it might lack objectivity and, a fortiori, when it takes place, as it did in the instant case, in a situation of overt antagonism (see Judgment 3171, under 23).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 320, 2917, 3171
Keywords:
discretion; performance report;
Judgment 3229
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his staff report, alleging that it was flawed by procedural errors.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3228
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his staff report, alleging that it was flawed by procedural errors.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, issues raised by staff reports “are discretionary and the Tribunal will set aside or amend 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 from the evidence. Those criteria are the more stringent because the EPO 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 Judgment 1688, under 5, and also Judgments 806, under 15, and 1144, under 7.) It is clear from the case law that the Tribunal will not interfere with the discretionary assessment of the decision-maker unless there is a reviewable error."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 246
ILOAT Judgment(s): 806, 1144, 1688
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; procedural flaw; rebuttal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance evaluation; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3224
115th Session, 2013
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070
Keywords:
condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3185
114th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges her performance evaluation report, alleging personal prejudice and discrimination on the part of her direct supervisor.
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
"In principle, a supervisor cannot be criticised for recording the mistakes and errors of a subordinate with a view to preparing that person’s periodical performance evaluation, provided that the purpose of that action is, on the one hand, to ensure that the rating will be objective and, on the other hand, to increase the service’s efficiency by improving the performance of the person concerned. In the instant case, however, it is plain from the evidence that this practice was consistently applied to the complainant in order to stigmatise her shortcomings. [...] Her [evaluation] report is thus tainted with a serious flaw which justifies that it be set aside".
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; flaw; organisation's interest; performance report; purpose; rating; supervisor; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report; retroactivity;
Judgment 3178
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a salary increment.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3138, 3140
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; increment; performance report;
Judgment 3171
114th Session, 2013
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges a performance evaluation report, alleging that it was in reality retaliation against her.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3010, 3170
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance report; personal file;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 48
Extract:
"An international organisation has a responsibility to treat its officials with dignity. If criticism is warranted [...] that should be done either by means of the performance appraisal reports or in a manner that ensures respect for the staff member's dignity."
Keywords:
duty of care; organisation's duties; performance report; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3062
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is well established in the Tribunal's case law that assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement, signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere 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, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 3006, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report;
Judgment 3059
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is fundamental to the law governing the relations between a staff member and an international organisation that adverse decisions, including adverse performance reports, must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not, those decisions become final and cannot be reopened."
Keywords:
decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; performance report; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
