Judgment No. 4543
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint dismissed; performance
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant firstly submits that the refusal to allow her to submit her internal appeal to the JAB in French undermined her right to an internal appeal and the fairness of the appeal procedure. [...] The Tribunal notes that [...] section 9.9(iii) of Chapter 9 of the Implementing Procedures, in the version applicable at the material time, is expressed in mandatory, restrictive terms and was correctly applied in the present case. Similarly, the right to be represented by a lawyer of one’s own choice in internal proceedings does not allow a rule or regulation that requires use of a particular language in those proceedings to be overridden. It is immaterial that the Rules of the Tribunal allow English or French to be used during proceedings before it.
Keywords
internal appeals body; language of rule
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that under its settled case law, 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. The Tribunal will set aside a performance evaluation 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, in particular, Judgments 3692, consideration 8, 3842, consideration 7, and 4010, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692, 3842, 4010
Keywords
discretion; role of the tribunal; performance
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which “the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations” (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the allegation of lack of impartiality, the Tribunal recalls that, under settled case law (see, in particular, Judgments 3192, consideration 13, 3314, consideration 9, 3380, consideration 9, and 3914, consideration 7) the complainant bears the burden of proving bias or partiality. Moreover, the evidence adduced must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that the allegation is well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3192, 3314, 3380, 3914
Keywords
bias; personal prejudice
|
