Jugement n° 4892
Décision
The complaint is dismissed.
Synthèse
The complainant challenges her staff report for 2008-2009 and the decision not to initiate a harassment procedure against her reporting officer.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés
Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Requête rejetée
Considérant 5
Extrait:
The second subheading referred to earlier is that “[t]he contested [staff report] is unjustified”. This is tantamount to an invitation to the Tribunal to enter the issue of whether a particular assessment in a performance appraisal report is appropriate. However, it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. But that is done only if a legal flaw is demonstrated. It is not in the present case.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Mots-clés
Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Contrôle du Tribunal; Evaluation; Rôle du Tribunal
Considérant 6
Extrait:
The third subheading referred to earlier is that “[s]landerous/libellous comments have been disseminated about me”. This is a contention concerning the conduct of Mr T.E. The only relevance of this plea in relation to the staff report would be if the complainant was able to establish that Mr T.E. had been actuated by bias or ill will towards her which infected his assessment of her performance. In the main, the evidence relied upon by the complainant concerns matters of detail including comments to which she takes exception or comments that she views as contradictory, but nonetheless views as proof of bias or ill will. None of the evidence, either in isolation or in aggregate, demonstrates bias or ill will on the part of Mr T.E. in the preparation of the report, which was also the considered conclusion of the Appeals Committee’s majority. While the Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty in proving bias or ill will (see, for example, Judgments 2318, consideration 4, and 2259, consideration 13), nonetheless the burden of doing so falls on the complainant (see Judgments 4745, consideration 12, and 4010, consideration 9). In these proceedings, she has failed to do so.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2259, 2318, 4010, 4745
Mots-clés
Charge de la preuve; Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Partialité
|
