Performance evaluation (661,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Performance evaluation
Total judgments found: 77
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
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 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, international organizations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisals. Therefore, such decisions are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will intervene only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 4010, consideration 5, 4062, consideration 6, 4170, consideration 9, and 4276, consideration 7). With specific regard to probationary periods, the Tribunal has said that the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position, and, accordingly, a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organization’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerned with probationary matters. In the course of making this assessment, an organization must establish clear objectives, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance in a timely manner, so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning where continued employment is in jeopardy. Moreover, a probationer is entitled to have objectives set in advance (see Judgment 4282, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4062, 4170, 4276, 4282
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; probationary period; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4445
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the procedure regarding his harassment complaint against his former supervisor.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Appeals Committee concluded that the complainant’s “claims” related to the subject PACE reports were irreceivable because they were the subject of two other internal appeals. The Appeals Committee expressly did not consider any aspect related to those reports which the complainant raised in his internal appeal (subsequently resolved in Judgments 3879 and 4229). This was wrong because the complainant was not seeking to relitigate the issues raised in those complaints in which he challenged the lawfulness of those PACE reports. In the present complaint his central allegation is, in effect, that specific actions by his supervisor during the course of those appraisal procedures support his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority. It is therefore clear that the complainant’s allegations insofar as they may concern those matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to close his harassment complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4241, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3879, 4229, 4241
Keywords:
harassment; performance evaluation; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4383
131st Session, 2021
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her a performance improvement plan (PIP).
Consideration 11
Extract:
[The Administration violated its own procedural rules for the establishment of the subject PIP.] The Federation will […] be ordered to remove the PIP from the complainant’s personnel file.
Keywords:
performance evaluation; personal file;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4382
131st Session, 2021
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decisions to set aside her 2016 performance appraisal only on the basis that it was procedurally flawed, and to insert in her personnel file the impugned decision and the report of the Appeals Commission.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias and that, moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations (see, for example, Judgments 2472, under 9, 3380, under 9, and 4097, under 14).
With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal has stated that although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving her or his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see, for example, Judgment 3912, under 13). The Tribunal has also stated, in the context of alleged inaccuracies in a staff report, that it is not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it is 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 (see, for example, Judgment 2930, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 2930, 3380, 3912, 4097
Keywords:
bias; performance evaluation; prejudice;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; personal file;
Judgment 4371
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks redress for the moral injury that she allegedly suffered in connection with her annual performance evaluation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4350
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s failure to provide him with a peaceful working environment and to protect him against a series of allegedly “prejudicial and unjustified adverse actions”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4319
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the designation of his reporting and countersigning officers for a staff report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4318
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his objectives for the reporting exercise January to December 2015 and the composition of the Appeals Committee that issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4304
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General to cancel the “Falls Below Expectations” overall rating in her 2014 performance appraisal report and to restore her entitlements as in the case of satisfactory performance, but not to award her damages or costs.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance evaluation;
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
It is well established in the case law 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. 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 organization 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 organization must ‘conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed’” (see Judgment 2414, consideration 23).
The complainant submits, in effect, that the “No rating” assessment for her 2014 PMDS report was unlawful. The “No rating” assigned to her corrected PMDS report does not satisfy the Organization’s duty to provide a properly rated PMDS report. Considering the complainant’s separation from service for health reasons and the passage of time, the Tribunal will not send the case back for a new rating, but will consider this element in the award of damages.
As Mr L.S. did not inform the complainant orally or in writing of the performance issues identified in the email of 3 February 2015, she could not take any steps to remedy the issue(s) and improve her performance appraisal. This constitutes a breach of WHO’s duty to act in good faith towards the complainant and to respect her dignity for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170, 2414
Keywords:
moral injury; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4302
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the final decision taken on his request for review of his 2016 performance appraisal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he review of [the complainant's] ePMDS was not in itself an official recognition of his supervisors’ wrong-doing or negligent mismanagement of the ePMDS process as he asserts. In fact, the review was an integral aspect of that process which yielded the result which the complainant sought and accepted: the revision of his 2016 End-Year ePMDS. Moreover, the review was conducted in a timely manner which ensured that the evaluation did not adversely affect his career, salary or terms of employment. He was informed of the revision in less than two months after he requested the review. Additionally, the complainant provides no evidence to support his assertion of personal prejudice or bad faith on the part of his supervisors in their initial evaluation. In fact, they both signed off on the revised ePMDS. He provides no evidence to prove that he suffered any injury or loss as a result of his supervisors’ initial evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Judgment 4289
130th Session, 2020
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her appointment for unsatisfactory performance and the decision to reject her harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; harassment; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has consistently stated that the decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is a discretionary decision, but if the decision is based on poor performance, the assessment of that performance has to be made in accordance with the rules established for that purpose. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2991, consideration 13:
“It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23).”
Allied to this is an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see, for example, Judgments 2678, consideration 8, and 3026, considerations 7 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414, 2678, 2991, 3026
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4282
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
It is useful to recall the general principles that govern setting aside a decision to dismiss a staff member of an international organization whose performance during a probationary period is considered inadequate. It was relevantly restated in consideration 4 of Judgment 4212 that the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position, and, for that reason, the Tribunal has consistently recognized that a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organisation’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerning probationary matters. This includes the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary term, and the identification of its own interests and requirements. Accordingly, it has been consistently stated that a discretionary decision of this nature will only be set aside “if taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority”. In Judgment 4212, the Tribunal also reaffirmed that “where the reason for refusal of confirmation is unsatisfactory performance, [it] will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own”.
It is also useful to reiterate an international organization’s obligations regarding a staff member’s probation period that are well settled in the case law. For example, in Judgment 4212, consideration 5, the Tribunal stated that such a period is to provide an organisation with an opportunity to assess an individual’s suitability for a position. In the course of making this assessment, an organisation must establish clear objectives against which performance will be assessed; provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties; identify in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken; and give a specific warning where continued employment is in jeopardy. It was also stated in Judgment 3678, consideration 1, that a probationer is “entitled to have objectives set in advance so that she or he will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3678, 4212
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; probationary period;
Judgment 4276
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisal under the new merit recognition system established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that international organisations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisal. Such decisions are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1583, under 2, 3039, under 7, 4010, under 5, 4062, under 6, and 4170, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 3039, 4010, 4062, 4170
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4267
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2008-2009.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that 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, for example, Judgments 3006, consideration 7, and 3062, consideration 3, a case likewise concerning a staff report). Accordingly the role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3062, 3228, 3692
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4264
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance management report for the period 1 January 2010 to 18 July 2010.
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is convenient to note at the outset that the role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3228, 3692
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4263
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance management report for 2009.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4262
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance management report for 2008.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
It is convenient to note at the outset that the role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8). [...]
To the extent the complainant invites the Tribunal to address whether there had been a misappraisal and to reappraise factual circumstances, it is an invitation the Tribunal, consistent with the case law, will not take up.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3228, 3692
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4258
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2006-2007.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that 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, for example, Judgments 3006, consideration 7, and 3062, consideration 3, a case likewise concerning a staff report). Accordingly the role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3062, 3228, 3692
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Judgment 4257
129th Session, 2020
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 evaluation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the Tribunal has said in relation to its own role, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement (see, for example, Judgment 3692 [...]). By parity of reasoning, it would be reasonable for an organisation to adopt an approach that individuals (such as those comprising the Appraisals Committee) reviewing a staff report prepared by a staff member’s supervisor involving value judgements would not be as well-placed to make the same value judgements but, in order to guard against abuses of the process, would have authority to assess whether the report was arbitrary or discriminatory. And while staff would understandably prefer the membership of the Appraisals Committee to include staff representation and not be limited to management, the fact that it is so limited does not render its constitution in this way, unlawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Consideration 17
Extract:
If an official involved in the preparation of a staff report is not impartial and that can be demonstrated by prior conduct, the fact that the conduct took place some years earlier does not render that prior conduct irrelevant when assessing partiality. Partiality is not necessarily periodic or episodic and can be enduring. In addition, it may be doubted that the Appraisals Committee could, without investigating the matter itself, simply rely on a short letter from management to satisfactorily deal with the question of partiality.
Keywords:
impartiality; performance evaluation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The role of the Tribunal in challenges to the assessment of the performance of staff of international organisations is a limited one and does not involve reassessment of performance by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3228, consideration 3, and 3692, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3228, 3692
Keywords:
performance evaluation;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
Allied to these arguments is an argument of the EPO that the complainant is limited as to the subject matter he can challenge having regard to the fact that Article 110a of the Service Regulations introduced by CA/D 10/14 and Circular No. 366 are general decisions which are not amenable to challenge unless and until a decision is made detrimentally affecting the complainant.
The last-mentioned argument of the EPO is founded on settled case law. The EPO cites Judgment 3291, consideration 8. A more recent illustration is Judgment 4075, consideration 4. However in the present case Article 110a of the Service Regulations introduced by CA/D 10/14 and Circular No. 366 have been applied in an individual decision affecting the complainant, namely the application of the new procedures to the review of his grievances about the terms of the 2014 staff report and the involvement in its preparation of individuals he alleges were not impartial. Accordingly, the complainant can challenge the lawfulness of those general decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 4075
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4253
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 12
Extract:
A staff member is entitled to have a regular appraisal. In the present case, this right, enshrined in Article 6.7 of the Staff Regulations, has been seriously violated for many years. The fact that the complainant did not complain about it before 2014 is not relevant, since he was not time-barred from challenging that irregularity when he filed his grievance. Similarly, the Tribunal will not take into account the fact that the absence of appraisals may not have had any impact on his career. Appraisals are not only intended to allow for promotion. They play an important role throughout a staff member’s career, including by allowing staff members to know how their superiors evaluate their work and to challenge that evaluation or improve their performance.
Keywords:
performance evaluation; time bar;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
