Judgment No. 4897
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
In this regard, in the first place, the complainant takes issue with the fact that the Appraisals Committee, established from 1 January 2015 by Article 110a of the Service Regulations, does not include a staff representative, unlike the Internal Appeals Committee which had until then been responsible for dealing with challenges to appraisal reports. However, the Tribunal has already held that this characteristic does not mean that the composition of the new body is inadequate (see Judgments 4795, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 11, and 4257, consideration 13). This plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637, 4795
Keywords
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that, however regrettable, the short time limit granted to the complainant to refer the matter to the Appraisals Committee was not, in this case, such as to breach her rights to an effective appeal or due process (see, as regards the requirements of the case law on this point, Judgment 4795, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4795
Keywords
right of appeal; time limit; performance report; rating
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A]ssessment 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 appraisal 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, for example, Judgments 4795, consideration 9, 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, or 3062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Keywords
performance report; rating; judicial review
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant perceives a breach in the fact that those goals were imposed on her by her reporting officer although she had expressed reservations in their regard [...] It is true that the Guidelines of 20 December 2017 define performance development as “the process by which managers and staff collaboratively agree upon the contribution to be made by individual staff members to enable the EPO to fulfil its mission”. But this statement, which merely aims to explain the general principle underlying the assessment system introduced by the Guidelines, cannot be construed as having intended to lay down a rule according to which any individual goal assigned to a staff member by her or his reporting officer must mandatorily be adopted by mutual agreement.
In Section III.1 concerning “[g]oal setting”, the Guidelines provide that “[t]he translation of business area goals into individual goals [...] is discussed by the reporting officer [...] and the staff member at a meeting”. Even if the text goes on to refer – somewhat awkwardly – to the goals set following that meeting as “the agreed goals”, the Tribunal considers that these provisions must be construed as only requiring that the reporting officer consult the staff member concerned on the goals that the reporting officer intends to assign to her or him, and not that those goals must receive the staff member’s assent.
Keywords
performance report; rating; consultation; interpretation of rules
Consideration 10
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s settled case law, bad faith cannot be presumed and must be proven by the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4675, consideration 6, 4333, consideration 15, 4161, consideration 9, 3902, consideration 11, or 2800, consideration 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3902, 4161, 4333, 4675
Keywords
burden of proof; bad faith
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although the complainant alleges [...] that no account was taken when setting her production goals of the time she had to spend on meetings with the human resources department regarding her personal situation, the Tribunal finds that – except in exceptional circumstances, which are not demonstrated in this case – that factor does not need to be taken into consideration when setting a staff member’s annual goals.
Keywords
performance report; rating
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that the goals assigned to her should have been updated during the year. However, aforementioned Section III.1 of the Guidelines provides in this connection that the goals set “may [...] be reviewed in the course of the year, depending on business requirements”. This is therefore merely an option [...].
Keywords
performance report; rating; interpretation of rules
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, the regulatory framework of an appraisal procedure, or in any event the substantive elements thereof, may not be amended by a provision adopted after the beginning of the reporting period concerned (see in particular Judgment 4257, consideration 10, explaining the content of Judgment 3185, consideration 7). That approach, which of course applies first and foremost to the setting of the criteria on the basis of which the assessment is performed, is justified by the need to observe both the principle of the non-retroactivity of administrative acts and the requirements of good faith, transparency and fairness that are incumbent in the matter of staff appraisals. [...]
[T]he Tribunal considers that these additional rules cannot be regarded as having substantially altered the assessment procedure set out in the Guidelines, especially since prior knowledge of these rules would not in any event have influenced the professional conduct of the staff members concerned during the reporting period.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 4257
Keywords
good faith; non-retroactivity; performance report; rating
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that the four-point assessment scale thus applied does not allow staff members to be assessed as accurately as the eight-point rating scale used in the former assessment system.
[T]he establishment of such assessment scales is a policy choice falling within the Organisation’s discretion with which – apart from in the extreme case of a clear abuse of that power, which does not arise here – it is not for the Tribunal to concern itself.
Keywords
performance report; rating; discretion
Consideration 20
Extract:
[W]hile the complainant takes issue with the slowness with which her challenge to the contested appraisal was examined, her claim for compensation under this head – which is, incidentally, highly perfunctory – must be rejected. The evidence shows that the conciliation and objection procedures lasted, in this case, a total of six months. The Tribunal considers – notwithstanding the detailed observation made above concerning the time taken to notify the conciliation report – that this length of time cannot be considered unreasonable in the light of the nature and circumstances of the case.
Keywords
time limit; delay
|
