Rating (288,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Rating
Total judgments found: 54
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4717
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;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In consideration 8 of Judgment 3739, the Tribunal confirmed its case law which states that, for there to be a cause of action, a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to her or his health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The complainant does not demonstrate that the result of that reporting exercise, which he does not contest, has caused any injury to his health, financially or otherwise, or that it is liable to cause him injury.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3739
Keywords:
cause of action; rating;
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.
Considerations 6 & 14
Extract:
Settled case law has it that supervisors enjoy wide discretion when assessing the performance of staff members and that, where a performance report is contested, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review. It will determine whether the reporting process is
vitiated by a formal or procedural flaw, an error of law or fact; whether a material fact was overlooked; whether there was a misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; or whether there was abuse of authority. The Tribunal has also stated that, as a performance assessment is a value judgement within the discretionary authority of the bodies mandated to conduct it in accordance with the relevant rules, it will not substitute its own opinion for assessments made by these bodies. The limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the mark given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that mark in the report. This is because a performance report serves no purpose unless a supervisor has full freedom to comment on performance. The supervisor’s independence and sense of fairness being presumed, it is for the complainant to provide evidence that the staff report is flawed (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 3268, consideration 9, 3252, consideration 6, 2400, consideration 3, 2318, consideration 4, 2064, consideration 4, and 880, consideration 4). Moreover, inasmuch as the complainant was a staff representative at the material time, it is convenient to recall the Tribunal’s statement, in consideration 19 of Judgment 3084, that an organisation must ensure that a staff member is not disadvantaged on the grounds of her or his participation in staff representation activities as the principle of freedom of association is infringed if a person is subject to a detriment or disability because of her or his activities within a staff association (see also Judgments 3414, consideration 4, and 2704, consideration 6).
[...]
[S]upervisors enjoy wide discretion when assessing the performance of staff members and that, where a performance report is contested, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 880, 2064, 2318, 2400, 2704, 3084, 3252, 3268, 3414, 4564
Keywords:
discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;
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.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s challenge to the substantive aspects of his 2014 staff report, the Tribunal finds it convenient to repeat the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“[A]ssessment 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.”
In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
“Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637
Keywords:
discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;
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;
Consideration 11
Extract:
As a precursor to considering the merits of the assessment of the complainant’s 2014 staff report, the Tribunal finds it convenient to repeat the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“[A]ssessment 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.”
In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
“Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637
Keywords:
discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;
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;
Consideration 11
Extract:
As a precursor to considering the merits of the assessment of the complainant’s 2014 staff report, the Tribunal finds it convenient to repeat the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“[A]ssessment 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.”
In Judgment 4637, having recalled that statement, the Tribunal observed, in consideration 13, that:
“Since the Tribunal’s power of review does not extend to determining as such whether appraisals are well founded, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637
Keywords:
discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;
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;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that the objection procedure before the Appraisals Committee set out in Circular No. 366 does not include the same safeguards as the internal appeal procedure before the Appeals Committee. However, the complainant does not put forward any arguments showing the objection procedure to be flawed. That the procedure before the Appraisals Committee is a written procedure, unless otherwise decided, does not breach his right to be heard. The Tribunal points out that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see Judgments 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6), but there is no general principle requiring her or him to be given an opportunity to present oral submissions (see Judgment 4398, consideration 4). Furthermore, the complainant had the opportunity to submit his observations at several points during the conciliation procedure and in the objections he submitted to the Appraisals Committee.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 4398, 4408
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; rating; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4620
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance assessment and complains that she was not able to exercise her right to an effective internal appeal in its regard.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; performance evaluation; rating; right of appeal;
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 2
Extract:
[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 EPO 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 [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4258
Keywords:
rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; rating;
Considerations 3 and 8
Extract:
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. Regarding the rating of EPO employees, those criteria are the more stringent because the Office 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, for example, Judgments 1688, consideration 5, 3062, consideration 3, 3228, consideration 3, 3268, consideration 9, 3692, consideration 8, and 4258, consideration 2).
[T]he authors of the contested staff report cannot be said to have drawn clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or failed to take account of a material fact – bearing in mind that, under the [...] case law, it is not for the Tribunal to further review the assessment of the complainant’s merits made by the authorities of the Office.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4258
Keywords:
conciliation; discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;
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 4462
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision of 2 May 2019 not to modify his performance evaluation report for 2017 and not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; rating; work appraisal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its case law in this area: “The principles governing the Tribunal’s consideration of challenges to staff performance appraisal reports are well settled. Indeed, they are discussed in Judgment 3378, consideration 6. The Tribunal recognises that such reports are discretionary and 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 drawn from the evidence” (see Judgment 3842, consideration 7). The Tribunal has also held that as a rule “he who approves [a staff member’s appraisal report] will grant the reporting officer great freedom of expression. The official’s observations on the report may in some cases serve to correct any error of judgment that may have been made. It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer’s opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period” (see Judgment 724, consideration 3; see also Judgment 2318, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 724, 2318, 3842
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; rating; role of the tribunal;
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.
Considerations 9, 12 and 13
Extract:
"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 marks given to the employee have been worked out in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for these bodies’ assessment of 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 Judgments 2834, under 7, and 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the mark given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that mark in the report."
"The restraint which the Tribunal must exercise [...] does not mean that it can disregard the fact that the comment accompanying the complainant’s productivity rating considerably detracts from the marking “good” and that the countersigning officer’s comments underscore that effect. [...] It follows from the foregoing that the [...] disputed staff report must be set aside."
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; rating; supervisor;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; limits; performance report; rating;
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 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 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 2930
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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;
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 1548
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The grounds for non-renewal being deterioration from 1990 in the complainant's performance and conduct, "the burden is on the Organization to show that its decision rested upon proper appraisal of the complainant's performance. [...] All the reports up to September 1990 having been satisfactory, the Organization's failure to have proper appraisal reports made since then is a flaw in the decision."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; conduct; contract; decision; different appraisals; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; period; procedural flaw; rating; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
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 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
