Jugement n° 4901
Décision
The complaint is dismissed.
Synthèse
The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés
Rapport d'appréciation; Notation; Evaluation; Requête rejetée
Considérant 3
Extrait:
[T]he complainant is not putting to the Tribunal an independent claim regarding harassment allegations as such in the present complaint. Rather, he brings up his alleged harassment in arguing the grounds for unlawfulness of his 2018 performance evaluation, inferring that it was based on extraneous improper considerations. It is therefore appropriate for the Tribunal to examine this argument, although only to the extent that it is strictly related to the legality of the specific decision challenged in the case at hand (see, for example, Judgments 4149, consideration 7, 3688, consideration 1, 3617, consideration 2, and 2837, consideration 3).
No issue of irreceivability arises in this regard.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3617, 3688, 4149
Mots-clés
Recevabilité de la requête; Harcèlement
Considérant 4
Extrait:
[W]hile it is true that the Tribunal’s case law establishes that the claims of a complainant must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal process, it has however recognized that a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas (see Judgments 4547, consideration 11, and 4522, consideration 3).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4522, 4547
Mots-clés
Nouvelle conclusion; Nouveau moyen
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)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
Mots-clés
Notation; Rôle du Tribunal; Performance
Considérant 18
Extrait:
The Tribunal’s case law has often emphasized that a staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purposes for which the authority was exercised (see, for example, Judgments 4618, consideration 10, 4382, consideration 13, and 4146, consideration 10).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4146, 4382, 4618
Mots-clés
Charge de la preuve; Abus de pouvoir
|
