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 3039
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2064, under 5, performance reports continue to be useful even if deadlines have not been respected, and failure to meet a deadline cannot on its own be a reason for setting aside reports. However, depending on the case, the effect that the delay has on the report's content will be taken into account."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2064
Keywords:
breach; condition; consequence; delay; judicial review; performance report; time limit;
Judgment 3026
111th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Failure on the part of the Organisation to give the complainant a fair opportunity to demonstrate improvement prior to deciding not to renew his fixed-term contract for unsatisfactory performance.
"It must be assumed that until 2006 the complainant's work was satisfactory as his contract was renewed from time to time, albeit that he was not subject to performance appraisal during the period he was employed on temporary assistance contracts."
Keywords:
appointment; complainant; contract; performance report; period; satisfactory service; short-term; work appraisal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"An 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."
Keywords:
notice; organisation's duties; performance report; reasonable time; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3006
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. 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 2834, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The principle of equality requires that all candidates in a given year be assessed by reference to staff reports for the same period. It is clear from Judgment 2221 that the principle also requires that if the 'merits' of a candidate for promotion are subsequently upgraded, the question of promotion must be considered on the basis of what would have happened if the upgraded marking had been considered previously."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2221
Keywords:
candidate; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 2991
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and, as such, it may be contested by means of an internal complaint lodged within the time limits established by an organisation's rules and regulations. It may even be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted."
Keywords:
cause of action; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report;
Judgment 2977
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Non-confirmation of appointment at the end of probation for unsatisfactory performance.
"It is well settled that 'the widest measure of discretion' attends decisions as to the confirmation or otherwise of probationary appointments (see Judgment 1386, under 17). Such decisions are subject to review only on the grounds that 'there was a mistake of fact or law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority' (see Judgment 1175, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1175, 1386
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; probationary period;
Judgment 2930
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Although the complainant asks for specific “box markings” in his 2000-2001 staff report, this is not a matter for the Tribunal. The matter must be remitted to the EPO to prepare a new staff report for the relevant period. Given the finding of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer, the new report must be drawn up by another officer based on the relevant documentation.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; performance report; rating;
Judgment 2926
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
The complainant worked for the ILO Staff Union from 2 August to 31 December 2004 under a special short-term contract. Subsequently, he continued to make his services available to the Staff Union without any written contract. He asks the Tribunal to find that he has been an ILO official since August 2004.
"The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that the complainant continued to make his services available to the Staff Union in the absence of any contract, that he was given access to the material facilities which the Office provides for the Staff Union, and that performance appraisal reports were drawn up for him could not confer on him a status that had not been granted by a formal administrative document. It follows that when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, he was not in a position to invoke the status of an official bound to the Organization by a contract concluded in accordance with the rules in force. [...] It follows that the complainant, since he lacks the status of an ILO official, has no access to the Tribunal, which must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; effect; facilities; formal requirements; no provision; non official; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;
Judgment 2917
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(d)
Extract:
"By twice giving the complainant a rating [- rating 0 -] that is not envisaged in the [relevant texts], the supervisor breached the rules applicable to the process of assessing a staff member's performance. Furthermore, this kind of rating is likely to leave the staff member concerned feeling that his competencies or performance in the areas assessed are so substandard that they do not even merit an assessment on the part of his supervisor. Such conduct may be expected to foster in the staff member a deep sense of personal inadequacy. As such a rating has no basis in law and is contrary to the rules of conduct applicable to the personal relations between international organisations and their staff, it cannot be upheld."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; performance report; rating; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The signing of a document with such important implications for the future career of a staff member is not a mere formality, and insistence on absolute compliance with this rule cannot be dismissed as an unduly formalistic approach. The provision requiring that the appraisal form be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by other persons [...] 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 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."
Keywords:
bias; formal flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Judgment 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, 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 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414
Keywords:
case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[P]erformance appraisal procedures must be 'both transparent and adversarial'. That is unlikely to be the case where the prescribed procedures are not observed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; case law; due process; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw; work appraisal;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he complainant contends that UNIDO's failure to conduct a performance appraisal before deciding not to renew his appointment constitutes a breach of procedure and a breach of his terms of employment as his letters of appointment stated that he would be evaluated on a yearly basis. [...] The defendant argues that since the non-renewal of the appointment was not based on performance, it is irrelevant whether a performance appraisal was or was not conducted. The Tribunal rejects this argument. UNIDO had a contractual obligation to conduct yearly performance appraisals. International organisations routinely require applicants for positions to provide at least their most recent performance appraisal from a prior employer. UNIDO's failure to provide the complainant with an appraisal has deprived him of the use of a critical tool in his search for future employment."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; performance report; project personnel; reorganisation; status of complainant;
Judgment 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal points out that post classification cannot be confused with performance review. It is uncontested that the complainant's performance was considered highly by her supervisors but that does not have any relevance to the assessment of her post for the purposes of grade classification."
Keywords:
grade; performance report; post classification; request by a party;
Judgment 2836
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]t is not necessarily contradictory for performance to be rated differently from one reporting period to the next (see, for example, Judgment 2162, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2162
Keywords:
difference; official; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the complainant's allegation of unequal treatment. The allegation is based on the fact that individuals having less seniority and lower-rated staff reports were invited to the assessment centre. According to the vacancy note, a candidate was expected to demonstrate the ability to manage a directorate comprising 25 to 30 examiners; particular attention would be paid to management potential, and a candidate would be assessed on the basis of his or her ability to manage, resolve disputes, implement policies, and communicate and interact with others. As these managerial skills are not a function of seniority or the requisite skills of an examiner, it cannot be said that preferring candidates with potential managerial skills over those with greater seniority or higher ratings as examiners constitutes unequal treatment."
Keywords:
candidate; criteria; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 2809
106th Session, 2009
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant impugns the decision not to award him an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
"The Tribunal has consistently held that a good performance record does not in itself justify selecting one candidate rather than another for a promotion or for the award of a post. The opinion of the author of an annual appraisal cannot be substituted for the conclusions of a selection board which, in this case, comprised representatives of the department head concerned, two human resources coordinators and two experts from another department, and which was responsible for selecting the candidates who had to be ranked as the best for the award of an indefinite contract [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2040
Keywords:
appointment; competition; decision; performance report; promotion; qualifications; rating; selection board;
Judgment 2507
100th Session, 2006
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Criticism of a subordinate's performance and behaviour, even in inappropriately strong language, does not, of itself, evidence harassment or prejudice. Certainly, that is so where [...] the performance and behaviour in question are confirmed by other senior and responsible officials. That being so, and there being no other evidence to support the complainant's claims, the allegations of harassment and prejudice must be rejected."
Keywords:
bias; conduct; different appraisals; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; performance report; respect for dignity; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2414
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2170 the Tribunal described the requirement of Staff Rule 12.1.5 that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of a salary increment as 'a formal one' which had to be complied with. It is important to explain why that was so. 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. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must 'conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 12.1.5 of the ITU
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
criteria; due process; duty to inform; good faith; increase; increment; interpretation; organisation's duties; output; patere legem; performance evaluation; performance report; respect for dignity; salary; staff regulations and rules; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2337
97th Session, 2004
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The case law cited [by the complainant] refers to the situation of a staff member who, failing any indication to the contrary, can rely on the continuation of his contractual relations (either not terminated or renewed), since according to the rules of good faith the Organization should warn the staff member if it considers his performance unsatisfactory in order to give him a chance to improve. The situation is different if an organisation [...] restricts the number of fixed term contracts a staff member may be given and lays down specific conditions for the award of an indefinite contract. In this case, the staff member cannot sit back and wait for his contract to be turned into an indefinite contract, since he will be expected to meet stricter requirements. Of course, the Organization is not on that account relieved of its duty of care towards the staff member, and, in accordance with the rules of good faith, it must warn him either if it is convinced that he is simply incapable of performing the duties attached to an indefinite contract, or if it believes that, in order to perform them the staff member must improve the quality of his work still further. This is an obligation the Organization must fulfil particularly in the context of periodic performance appraisals."
Keywords:
case law; condition; contract; duty to inform; fixed-term; good faith; legitimate expectation; organisation's duties; performance report; permanent appointment; satisfactory service; successive contracts; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. "The particular circumstances upon which the ITU relies to argue that the complainant should not be granted her step X increment are that the unsatisfactory nature of her services had already been documented prior to the report signed on 3 May 2002 and that she did not cooperate with the establishment of her periodic appraisals. It may at once be noted that the appraisal for the relevant period was not made in May 2002, but in November of that year. Further, and given the complainant's absence on sick leave at various times during the relevant appraisal periods, it is difficult to infer lack of cooperation on her part. However, and more to the point, the matters upon which the Union relies fall far short of establishing that it made a genuine effort to comply with its own procedures, and do not show that the complainant frustrated or sabotaged any such effort. That being so [...], those considerations cannot defeat the complainant's entitlement to her step X increment retroactively. The treatment of the complainant by the ITU is [...] unacceptable."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; date; evidence; increment; liability; organisation; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; period; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; right; sick leave; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2307
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
The investigation of a complaint filed by an international civil servant should not be used subsequently as the basis for an appraisal report, and even less to justify the termination of a contract.
The complainant is, accordingly, right in maintaining that the assessment which led the Reports Board to recommend that her contract should not be extended and the Director-General subsequently to endorse that recommendation, was based on information which should not have been taken into consideration.
Keywords:
internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; performance report; submissions; termination of employment;
Judgment 2221
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
