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 1301
76th Session, 1994
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant is objecting to a decision to put in her personal file several performance appraisals which she alleges were drawn up in breach of the established procedure and contained "libellous comments". The ILO says that she refused to submit any comments of her own on the reports and thereby prevented the review procedure from moving ahead. "The requirement that a complainant go through any internal procedure is not just a formality. [...] By refusing to [make] comments on the draft reports she is challenging the complainant failed to avail herself of the means at her disposal to have the reports withdrawn or altered. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; work appraisal;
Judgment 1246
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
"The purpose of Article 6.7.3 of the Staff Regulations is that the lapse of time between first and second reports should be long enough - the period prescribed is nine months - to give the probationer a proper opportunity of showing his mettle before the second report has to be made. The period of less than three months that the complainant was allowed was far too short to allow of any substantial improvement. [...] The procedural flaw caused the complainant injury."
Keywords:
cause of action; date; delay; due process; flaw; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; qualifications; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1238
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Even if the Director-General has discretion to refuse reinstatement 'in the interest of the organization' he must exercise it fairly and reasonably after considering all the material facts. Here the facts were that the complainant had throughout had irreproachable appraisal reports. [...] Despite surveillance, without his knowledge, for six months prior to [the incident that led to his dismissal] no wrongdoing, negligence or irregularity on his part was discovered. [...] The Director-General has failed to take into consideration the above material facts and has erred in treating the complainant as guilty of a 'cover-up'. The refusal of reinstatement was thus not a proper exercise of whatever discretion he had in the matter."
Keywords:
complainant; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation; organisation's interest; performance report; refusal; reinstatement; right; termination of employment;
Judgment 1221
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of an unfavourable assessment of her performance. "The assessment of her shows neither any mistake nor abuse of authority. [...] Since she has shown no significant mistake in [her generally negative] assessment and since the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review over administrative decisions of that kind, her claims under this head must fail."
Keywords:
abuse of power; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; performance report; rating; report;
Judgment 1208
74th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant objected to the content of her performance appraisal and requested so-called conciliation proceedings under Section 331 of Annex E to the FAO Manual. The Tribunal holds that "the process of conciliation was not properly followed: if it had been, allegations of unsatisfactory conduct would have been distinguished from allegations of unsatisfactory service. That is a distinction that the Tribunal drew in an earlier case against the FAO [...]: see Judgment 247, under 12 and 13."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: SECTION 331, ANNEX E, FAO MANUAL
ILOAT Judgment(s): 247
Keywords:
conduct; due process; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; report; staff regulations and rules; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 1179
73rd Session, 1992
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant wishes to have three allegedly damaging memoranda removed from his personal file. "There is no reason to have them struck from his [...] file. First, they merely bear witness to his attitude at a particular time, and he had an opportunity of discussing them with the authors and to question what they said: there was therefore no breach of his right to a hearing. Secondly, and above all, they afforded the basis for the reservation about his conduct in his periodical report and were essential to an understanding of the context in which the report was written."
Keywords:
conduct; performance report; personal file; right to reply;
Judgment 1170
73rd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant disputes the method for reckoning the output of a certain category of officials. "The method is not a matter for the Promotion Board; else it would find itself revising ratings in staff reports. In point of fact there is nothing discriminatory about the method. [...] Be that as it may, if the complainant objected to the reckoning of his own output the proper course was for him to challenge his staff report and the ratings it contained. He did not do so."
Keywords:
equal treatment; performance report; promotion; promotion board; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 1144
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As was said in Judgment 806 [...], a decision on a staff report, being a discretionary one, may be set aside only on limited grounds such as a procedural or formal flaw, a mistake of fact or of law, the overlooking of some material fact, abuse of authority or the drawing of a mistaken conclusion from the evidence. That judgment goes on to explain that the review will be more limited because at the EPO there is a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations allow the staff member to appeal to a joint committee made up of people who are closely familiar with the running of the Office."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 806
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; rebuttal;
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
The complainant, who has objections to his performance report, contends that the EPO's reporting system does not treat all officials on the same basis inasmuch as one group of officials may complete a shortened report and because the system is in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that everyone shall be entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. But the Tribunal considers that "the complainant has not shown that he himself has been adversely affected because staff who belong to another category have [the aforementioned] option." Moreover, "the Convention puts obligations on signatory States, and it is not apparent that it is applicable [...]. At all events, even supposing that the Convention as such was applicable, the Tribunal's answer to the plea would be that the principles underlying Article 6 are fully recognised in the Service Regulations".
Keywords:
enforcement; equal treatment; international instrument; lack of injury; performance report; rating; right to reply;
Judgment 1136
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant is objecting to an appraisal report. "According to well-established precedent [...] a reporting officer has wide discretion [...] and [his assessment] will stand unless there is an obvious mistake of fact or failure to show the sort of objectivity that ought to govern reporting."
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant wants the Tribunal to set aside two reports which describe his work as unsatisfactory as well as decisions to suspend his salary step increase and not to extend his appointment. He alleges bad faith and abuse of authority on the part of the administration. There is conflicting evidence. "A complainant must discharge the burden of proof and satisfy an internal appeal body or the Tribunal that the balance of probability is that his allegations of fact are true. [...] The Tribunal has [...] considered all the evidence, including a transcript of a recording the complainant secretly made of a conversation with his supervisor. It finds that he has not discharged the burden of proving his allegations".
Keywords:
abuse of power; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; complainant; conduct; contract; evidence; fixed-term; good faith; increment withheld; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; performance report; recording; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal has only a limited power of review in the matter of performance reports. It will not interfere unless the decision impugned has been based on a mistake of fact or of law [etc]".
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The decision [...] to suspend his advancement in step was based on the unsatisfactory performance reports. It was a sanction which the Director General was entitled to impose, after consulting the Joint Advisory Committee, in the light of those reports and in accordance with Rule 10.1.1(a)(3)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF RULE 10.1.1(A)(3)
Keywords:
increment withheld; performance report; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1075
70th Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of his appraisal report on the grounds that it had been drawn up during a period of conflict with his supervisors. However, the report was prepared jointly by three supervisors. "[S]uch joint participation obviated any danger there would have been in having a report drawn up by a supervisor with whom the complainant had had a clash of personality or other form of conflict".
Keywords:
application for quashing; bias; performance report;
Judgment 1063
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant impugns his performance report. Because he failed to follow the internal appeals procedure his complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1048
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant seeks the withdrawal of her performance report. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appraisal of her work was based on true facts; besides, the complainant's reservations were appended to the report.
Keywords:
application for quashing; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 1028
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was issued a reprimand after putting down insulting remarks about his supervisors on his staff report. Article 47(1) of the EPO Service Regulations says that employees "shall be entitled to make any comments" they consider relevant on their staff report. But the Tribunal holds that "the freedom of speech that provision safeguards plainly affords no excuse for insult and libel." The choice of sanction is wholly warranted.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 47(1) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; freedom of speech; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 973
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The case-law has laid down several principles in the matter of staff reports. First, the person approving the report will allow the reporting officer great freedom of expression. Secondly, the staff member's own comments may serve to remedy any error of judgment there may have been. Thirdly, it would be wrong to approve a report (a) if the reporting officer had made an obvious mistake of fact over some important point, (b) if he had neglected some essential fact, (c) if he had been grossly inconsistent or (d) if he could be shown to have been prejudiced."
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 972
66th Session, 1989
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The complainant's performance reports all show that he was a highly competent and dedicated officer who did valuable work for the organization, and letters in the dossier support the view that administrations in several countries appreciated the effectiveness of the programme he supervised. There is therefore no question of the non-renewal's being justified by unsatisfactory professional performance on his part."
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; satisfactory service;
Judgment 920
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is clear form the evidence before the Tribunal that the complainant's objections to the report are unfounded. He knew already, because [his supervisor] had often told him, that his performance was considered poor. The period covered by the report was not too short because the minimum period a report may cover is three months."
Keywords:
performance report; period; rating; rebuttal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 919
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's "objections to the reckoning of his output are unsound. Not only is a search examiner required to produce a steady output of work, but the output expected of him was reckoned according to the period covered by the report. There is therefore no reason why the report period should not be five months, even if the more usual period is a year."
Keywords:
output; performance report; period; rebuttal; work appraisal;
Judgment 880
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The general rating is a synthesis of the marks in the staff member's report and of several imponderables that also count in giving a fair opinion of his services to the organisation."
Keywords:
discretion; elements; performance report; work appraisal;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often said, performance reports serve no purpose unless the supervisor has full freedom in commenting on performance. [...] The Tribunal will review the decision only where there has been blatant abuse of authority or breach of a formal or procedural rule".
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 841
63rd Session, 1987
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Organisation "was willing, exceptionally, to issue a qualified performance assessment certificate in the form specified by the laws of the Federal Republic as part of an overall settlement in which the complainant would be reimbursed in respect of certain expenses incurred by him and he in turn would be required to give a written statement that all his claims arising from his employment with the ESO had been settled and that he would refrain from making any further claims or take any further action against the Organisation. The complainant being unwilling to give such a statement, no settlement was reached. In the absence of agreement by both parties to the terms to the proposed settlement, the ESO is under no obligation to provide the complainant with the performance assessment he seeks."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 780, 840, 842
Keywords:
certificate of service; lack of consent; offer; performance report; waiver of right of appeal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
