Performance (955,-666)

Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: Performance
Jugements trouvés: 9

• Jugement 4902

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.

  Considérant 9

  Extrait:

  Given the limited scope of the power of review of the Tribunal on performance appraisals as constantly indicated in the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, considerations 2 and 3, and the case law cited therein), the fact that the complainant’s view of his performance is different than that of his supervisor is clearly not sufficient to set aside this evaluation and order that another one be undertaken.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
  

  Mots-clés:

  Notation; Performance; Rôle du Tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4901

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.

  Considérant 11

  Extrait:

  The Tribunal’s case law has long recognized the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals. In this regard, in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, the Tribunal stated the following:
  “2. [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 [organization concerned] 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, the scope of which will be reiterated below.
  3. 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. [...]”
  (See also Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11.)

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
  

  Mots-clés:

  Notation; Performance; Rôle du Tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4840

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation internationale pour les migrations
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.

  Considérant 18

  Extrait:

  [I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Evaluation; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Violation;
  

  Considérant 5

  Extrait:

  [T]he Tribunal disagrees with IOM’s assertion that the complaint is allegedly irreceivable (for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as the underlying appeal was not filed within the applicable deadline), insofar as it concerns the decisions, communicated to the complainant on 13 June 2019, to establish the PIP (including any alleged violation of the SES process) and to extend the complainant’s contract for a three-month period corresponding to the PIP’s duration. The Tribunal considers that a staff member may challenge the decision to subject her to a PIP in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the PIP process. In Judgment 3713, consideration 3, the Tribunal recalled that:
  “[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).” (See also Judgment 3890, consideration 5.)
  In the present case, the decision taken at the end of the PIP process was a decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract due to underperformance and this decision resulted in the complainant being separated from IOM. This being so, the Tribunal considers that the above cited case law from Judgments 3713, consideration 3, and 3890, consideration 5, is equally applicable in a case such as the present. And given that the complainant impugns her final contract extension and ultimate non-renewal, it is of no relevance whether the issue of her prior three-month extension is receivable.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2366, 3198, 3713, 3890
  

  Mots-clés:

  Décision définitive; Etape de la procédure; Evaluation; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Services insatisfaisants;
  

  Considérant 20

  Extrait:

  [A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
  It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Evaluation; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  Considérants 23-24

  Extrait:

  [T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
  In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
  “As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’”
  Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2916, 3026, 3282
  

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Appréciation des services; Avertissement; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  Considérant 7

  Extrait:

  With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
  “[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal 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 law or of fact, 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 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).” (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713
  

  Mots-clés:

  Contrôle du Tribunal; Déductions manifestement inexactes; Détournement de pouvoir; Erreur de droit; Erreur de fait; Evaluation; Limites; Performance;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4770

  
  137e session, 2024
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision de le renvoyer pour inconduite.

  Considérant 20

  Extrait:

  [L]a période antérieure de service irréprochable du requérant au sein de la FAO ne constituait pas, en soi, une circonstance atténuante (voir le jugement 3083, au considérant 20), même si cela peut parfois être le cas (voir le jugement 4457, au considérant 20).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3083, 4457
  

  Mots-clés:

  Circonstances atténuantes; Performance; Sanction disciplinaire;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4678

  
  136e session, 2023
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour le développement industriel
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste les décisions de ne pas prolonger son engagement de durée déterminée pour cause de services insatisfaisants et de suspendre son avancement d’échelon dans la classe.

  Considérant 4

  Extrait:

  [L]e Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence constante concernant l’évaluation des services d’un fonctionnaire et le renouvellement d’un contrat à durée déterminée. Une organisation jouit d’un large pouvoir d’appréciation lorsqu’elle prend de telles décisions, qui ne peuvent faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint du Tribunal, qui ne les censurera que si elles ont été prises en violation d’une règle de compétence, de forme ou de procédure, si elles reposent sur une erreur de fait ou de droit, si des éléments essentiels n’ont pas été pris en considération, s’il a été tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées ou si un détournement de pouvoir a été commis (voir le jugement 4170, au considérant 9, et la jurisprudence citée). Si le motif invoqué pour ne pas renouveler un contrat repose sur les services insatisfaisants de l’agent intéressé, qui est en droit d’être informé à temps de ce qu’on lui reproche, l’organisation ne peut fonder sa décision que sur une évaluation de son travail effectuée dans le respect de règles préalablement établies (voir, en particulier, le jugement 2991, au considérant 13, et la jurisprudence citée). Cela suppose que l’intéressé ait été informé à l’avance de ce que l’on attendait de lui, notamment par la communication d’une description précise des objectifs fixés (voir le jugement 3148, au considérant 25).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2991, 3148, 4170
  

  Mots-clés:

  Durée déterminée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance; Rôle du Tribunal; Services insatisfaisants;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4543

  
  134e session, 2022
  Fonds international de développement agricole
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2016.

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Performance; Requête rejetée;
  

  Considérant 4

  Extrait:

  Le Tribunal rappelle [...] que, selon sa jurisprudence constante en la matière, l’évaluation des mérites d’un fonctionnaire au cours d’une période déterminée fait appel à un jugement de valeur, ce qui exige du Tribunal qu’il reconnaisse le pouvoir d’appréciation des organes chargés de procéder à une telle évaluation. Un rapport d’évaluation des performances sera donc uniquement annulé pour un vice de forme ou de procédure, une erreur de droit ou de fait, l’omission de tenir compte de faits essentiels, un détournement de pouvoir ou des déductions manifestement inexactes tirées du dossier (voir, notamment, les jugements 3692, au considérant 8, 3842, au considérant 7, et 4010, au considérant 5).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3692, 3842, 4010
  

  Mots-clés:

  Performance; Pouvoir d'appréciation; Rôle du Tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4542

  
  134e session, 2022
  Fonds international de développement agricole
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pendant sa période de stage.

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Performance; Période probatoire; Requête admise;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4513

  
  134e session, 2022
  Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision de ne pas convertir son engagement de jeune diplômé de l’enseignement supérieur lorsqu’il est arrivé à échéance et de mettre fin à celui-ci.

  Considérant 5

  Extrait:

  Selon la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, une décision de ne pas renouveler un contrat de durée déterminée est de nature discrétionnaire mais, lorsque cette décision est fondée sur des services insatisfaisants, l’évaluation des services doit être faite dans le respect des règles établies à cette fin et il s’ajoute à cette obligation celle de donner à la personne concernée la possibilité de s’améliorer (voir, notamment, le jugement 4289, au considérant 7, et la jurisprudence citée). Ces principes sont également applicables lorsqu’il s’agit, comme en l’espèce, de décider ou non de la conversion d’un engagement comme jeune diplômé en un engagement à durée indéterminée ou pour une durée limitée.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4289
  

  Mots-clés:

  Courte durée; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Performance;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4502

  
  134e session, 2022
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la science et la culture
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste la décision de ne pas reclasser son poste.

  Considérant 13

  Extrait:

  Ainsi qu’en font foi les extraits déjà cités du jugement 4221, au considérant 11, le classement d’un poste ne concerne en aucun cas la manière dont le titulaire s’acquitte de ses tâches (voir également le jugement 4000, au considérant 9).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4000, 4221
  

  Mots-clés:

  Classement de poste; Performance;