Judgment No. 565
Decision
1. THE COMPLAINANT'S PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR 1980-81 WAS IMPROPERLY PROCESSED.
2. THE ILO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 2,000 SWISS FRANCS AS COMPENSATION FOR MORAL INJURY.
3. THE ILO SHALL PAY HIM 1,000 SWISS FRANCS AS COSTS.
4. THE OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant's present supervisors appraise his performance in terms identical or similar to those used by his earlier supervisors. There is no sign of prejudice against him. The lateness of the report is accounted for by the changes which took place. The papers which were not properly communicated to the complainant are unlikely to have been will fully concealed from him. The plea of prejudice therefore fails.
Keywords
administrative delay; work appraisal; performance report; bias
Consideration 5(D)
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law claims to compensation are receivable if linked with a claim for breach of a contract of appointment or of the Staff Regulations."
Keywords
claim; receivability of the complaint; damages; condition
Consideration 8(A)
Extract:
"There are no grounds for supposing that if the report had been made properly the complainant would have derived financial benefit from appointment to a higher post." Since the start of his career, the complainant has entered competitions, with comparable performance reports, and been unsuccessful on every occasion. It is unlikely that he would have fared better in the most recent competition if he had properly been able to refer to the report. No material injury.
Keywords
material injury; administrative delay; performance report; flaw
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant has been working in the organisation for 20 years. His advancements in grade have been due either to a reorganisation or to review of his duties. He has sought, in vain, a more senior post. Younger officials have reached higher grades. He has never been awarded a special salary increment. "Accordingly, life being what it is, even though he has misconstrued the reasons for the irregularities in his [performance report], he was particularly affected by them. For the moral injury he has suffered he is entitled to compensation".
Keywords
injury; moral injury; administrative delay; performance report; flaw
Consideration 5(C)
Extract:
"The obligations which the complainant seeks to lay on the organisation in [the] claim [...] are in part stipulated in the Staff Regulations and are stated in such general terms that performance would not be enforceable. Insofar as it is not invalid, the claim is too imprecise and therefore irreceivable."
Keywords
vague claim; receivability of the complaint
Consideration 4
Extract:
"A claim made in a rejoinder will be receivable only if it comes within the scope of a claim made in the complaint." A new claim which comes within the scope of a previous one may be treated as a valid alteration thereof. A new claim which states an older claim in different terms cannot stand as an independent claim and may not be considered. A new claim which repeats earlier claims or falls outside their scope is irreceivable.
Keywords
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder
Consideration 5(A)
Extract:
According to the Staff Regulations, decisions taken by the Director-General himself are not subject to the complaint procedure. "The performance report referred to in [the complainant's claim] was approved by the Director-General and so he accepted responsibility for it. The complainant was therefore entitled to take the view that he need not address a complaint to the Director-General before submitting [his claim] to the Tribunal. [...] Article VII(1) of the Statute constitutes no bar to a complainant who [...] rightly concluded that he was not required to follow one of the internal appeal procedures."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords
decision; receivability of the complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; exception; performance report; executive head
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is not enough for a complainant "to allege emotional distress to obtain financial compensation. What the Tribunal will require is that in the circumstances the effect on his feelings should have been appreciably greater than that of the ordinary fortunes of everyday life."
Keywords
moral injury; condition
Consideration 5(B)
Extract:
The complainant's claim "is for rating his performance, not 'fully satisfactory', but 'outstanding'. The Tribunal cannot make any general assessment of performance and this is a matter outside its own competence and exclusively within the ILO's."
Keywords
competence of tribunal; work appraisal; discretion
| 
