Performance evaluation (661,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Performance evaluation
Total judgments found: 85

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >

• Judgment 4062

  
  127th Session, 2019
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  With respect to the complainant, it is true that the Organization had prepared a performance improvement plan, for which paragraphs 16 et seq. of item 14.4 of the Human Resources Manual provide in the event that a staff member’s performance is deemed unsatisfactory, which was implemented over a period of three months, from March to June 2013. However, the evidence shows that as the complainant’s direct supervisor was not sufficiently available, the requirements of the plan were not fully observed. Indeed, whereas the plan provided for, in particular, weekly meetings between the supervisor and the complainant
  in order to define her objectives, the Organization does not seriously dispute that these meetings were not actually held since, apart form the meeting convened for the final assessment, only two meetings between these two persons on the implementation of the plan were organised, on 29 April and 9 July 2013.
  It follows from the foregoing that the complainant did not receive the regular feedback from her supervisors that she would have needed in this case in order to substantially improve the quality of her performance.

  Keywords:

  performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Considerations 8 and 12

  Extract:

  The evidence, and in particular the hearing before the Reports Board and deliberations of the Appeals Board, as presented in the
  respective opinions of these two collegial bodies, shows that at the material time there were serious internal communication shortcomings in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, to which the complainant was assigned.
  It appears, and the evidence also shows, that this situation was to a large extent due to the great number of responsibilities and particularly complex tasks that had been assigned to that Section. This had in fact prompted the complainant’s direct supervisor, on 20 March 2013, to report his superiors on the Section’s “[i]ntolerable workload”*in a memorandum especially intended for that purpose, in which he emphasised that the resulting working conditions were extremely difficult for himself and for all staff members concerned.
  Such a working environment is clearly detrimental to the quality of staff performance and makes it particularly difficult, a fortiori, for employees who are not providing satisfactory services to improve the quality of their performance.
  [...]
  It follows from these provisions, which, moreover, merely state general principles that apply to any professional appraisal procedure, that particular circumstances such as a serious lack of communication between an employee and her/his supervisors, or extraordinary pressure on the service that an employee is working in, resulting from an unbearable collective workload, must be taken into account in assessing the performance of a staff member.

  Keywords:

  general principle; performance evaluation; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4010

  
  126th Session, 2018
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.

  Considerations 5-8

  Extract:

  A convenient starting point in the Tribunal’s consideration of the complainant’s performance appraisals for 2012 is to identify the principles which are applicable. The principles are well settled. The Tribunal recognises that “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” (see Judgment 3945, consideration 7). The Tribunal will set aside 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, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 7, 3692, consideration 8, 3378, consideration 6, 3006, consideration 7, and 2834, consideration 7). [...]
  [T]he complainant’s analysis does not reveal any factual errors that might have had a material effect on the ultimate conclusions about his performance. While the analysis reflects the complainant’s view, understandably favourable to him, of how he had performed in relation to those seven activities, it does not reveal an error of the type that would warrant intervention by the Tribunal having regard to the principles discussed in consideration 5 above. The complainant’s supervisor was entitled to form the view he had of the complainant’s performance and it was not flawed by any material factual error. It was a view based on evaluation and assessment of available material. While the complainant disagrees with that evaluation and assessment, it was within the supervisor’s discretionary power to make that evaluation and assessment, and there is no basis established by the complainant for reviewing the exercise of that power and for setting aside the performance appraisal which was, in part, based on it.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3378, 3692, 3842, 3945
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; discretion; performance evaluation; performance report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3713

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the reference value, used by the EPO to plan and measure productivity, introduced for patent examiners working in their technical field.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13). In the present case, there is nothing to prevent the complainants from challenging, through the applicable internal procedures and ultimately before the Tribunal if need be, a staff report in which their productivity has been measured by reference to the contested value.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198
  

  Keywords:

  performance evaluation; performance report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3692

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant who, at the material time, was working as a patent examiner, objects to three of his staff reports, submits that he was subjected to harassment and challenges the rejection of his request for an independent examination of several of his dissenting opinions on patent applications.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [I]t is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that if the rules of an international organisation require that an appraisal form must be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by her or his second-level supervisor, this is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared between these two authorities and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member’s skills and performance. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the competent second-level supervisor should take care to ascertain that the assessment submitted for her or his approval does not require modification (see Judgment 320, under 12, 13 and 17, or more recently Judgments 3171, under 22, and 3239, under 15). Of course, this check must be carried out with particular vigilance when the assessment occurs in a context where it is especially to be feared that the supervisor making it might lack objectivity and, a fortiori, when it takes place, as it did in the instant case, in a situation of overt antagonism (see Judgment 3171, under 23).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 320, 3171, 3239
  

  Keywords:

  organisation's duties; performance evaluation; performance report; supervisor;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  The complainant has not provided any substantive, cogent evidence proving that his line manager’s actions or statements belittled or humiliated him and that he therefore suffered harassment. The investigation conducted by the mediator did reveal the existence of considerable tension between the complainant and his line manager, which had impaired their professional relations and had ultimately created a strained working atmosphere. However, the facts established by the mediator, viewed in isolation or as a whole, do not lead the Tribunal to arrive at a different conclusion than that reached by him, as summarised in consideration 17 [...].

  Keywords:

  evidence; harassment; performance evaluation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3512

  
  120th Session, 2015
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges a warning letter from his reporting officer, warning him that he was at risk of receiving markings of less than "good" in his forthcoming staff report.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3511

  
  120th Session, 2015
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the third version of his staff report for 2002-2003.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3489

  
  120th Session, 2015
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision that his 2010 Performance Review Report shall be redone from the beginning and that a decision regarding an amendment to his contract extension from three to five years will be contingent on the outcome of the new Report.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; extension of contract; performance evaluation; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3487

  
  120th Session, 2015
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to allow a “Note for the File” to remain on his personal file.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation; personal file; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3437

  
  119th Session, 2015
  Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision to terminate his contract following the CTA restructuring.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "By [...] commissioning an extraneous body to undertake a task which entailed interfering in the assessment of staff members’ suitability for the available positions, whereas the Staff Regulations made no provision for this, the Centre established an assessment system parallel to that which existed officially and which, moreover, did not offer staff members the safeguards inherent in the official system."

  Keywords:

  performance evaluation; qualifications;
  

  
  
  

• 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 3241

  
  115th Session, 2013
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reviews for 2008 and 2009.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and may be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted. This is buttressed by the statement of principle in Judgment 466, under 3, that such matters may be so challenged since every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on her or his performance, on which her or his career will depend. However, such a decision must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not so challenged, the decision becomes final and cannot be reopened (see Judgment 3059, under 7)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 466, 3059
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; internal remedies exhausted; performance evaluation; performance report; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3240

  
  115th Session, 2013
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation; probationary period; rules of the organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3228

  
  115th Session, 2013
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests his staff report, alleging that it was flawed by procedural errors.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; performance evaluation; performance report; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3216

  
  115th Session, 2013
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; investigation report; performance evaluation; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3151

  
  113th Session, 2012
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; performance evaluation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3150

  
  113th Session, 2012
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law establishes that a decision not to renew an official’s appointment for unsatisfactory service must be grounded on a consideration of the official’s appraisal reports. Additionally, an international organisation must comply with its own procedures in relation to performance appraisals (see, for example, Judgment 2850, under 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2850
  

  Keywords:

  non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3148

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Centre for the Development of Enterprise
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  The Tribunal considers that an assessment report constitutes a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and, as such, it may be contested by means of an internal complaint lodged with the prescribed time limits. It may even be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgment 2991, under 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991
  

  Keywords:

  performance evaluation;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3144

  
  113th Session, 2012
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  No final decision was, however, taken on the complainant’s contestation of her performance appraisal. While the Administration could indeed criticise her for not complying with Office Instruction No. 19/2006, because she did not submit a rebuttal statement to the Rebuttal Panel, that did not in any way exempt it from passing on her contestation to the Panel, as its duty of care required of it. Failure to take that step resulted in a denial of justice, because the complainant was deprived of her right to have the form and substance of her contestation examined independently by the appointed body.

  Keywords:

  performance evaluation;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3139

  
  113th Session, 2012
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3135

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >