Judgment No. 4902
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; performance evaluation; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
[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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3617, 3688, 4149
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; harassment
Consideration 9
Extract:
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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
Keywords
rating; role of the tribunal; performance
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant further maintains that paragraph 31 of AC 26 was violated because the HR representative who was to be consulted for the performance qualification during a collegial meeting was not present at that meeting as contemplated in the applicable procedures.
But, on this other issue, the record indicates that the HR representative stated at the JAAB hearing that during the final collegial consultation meeting of 24 March 2020, she had been unable to attend due to technical problems but that she finally ended up talking to the IT Head of Department later on the same day with regard to this collegial consultation.
While it is true that this discussion did not take place in an ideal collegial manner as a result of this technical problem, the fact remains that a meeting took place, with only one member missing, and that the consultation with the HR representative occurred later on the very same day and allowed the Head of Department to meet the requirements of the procedure set forth in AC 26 in this regard. This was also not the only consultation conducted in the performance process, and the missing member was the representative of HR, who did not have direct input to give on the appraisal of the performance of the complainant and was rather plausibly there to provide technical expertise.
In sum, even accepting that this constituted a procedural flaw, the Tribunal considers that it does not, in any event, amount to a substantial defect that would render the performance appraisal irregular and justify setting aside the impugned decision on that basis.
[…]
The complainant further maintains that paragraph 31 of AC 26 was violated because the HR representative who was to be consulted for the performance qualification during a collegial meeting was not present at that meeting as contemplated in the applicable procedures.
But, on this other issue, the record indicates that the HR representative stated at the JAAB hearing that during the final collegial consultation meeting of 24 March 2020, she had been unable to attend due to technical problems but that she finally ended up talking to the IT Head of Department later on the same day with regard to this collegial consultation.
While it is true that this discussion did not take place in an ideal collegial manner as a result of this technical problem, the fact remains that a meeting took place, with only one member missing, and that the consultation with the HR representative occurred later on the very same day and allowed the Head of Department to meet the requirements of the procedure set forth in AC 26 in this regard. This was also not the only consultation conducted in the performance process, and the missing member was the representative of HR, who did not have direct input to give on the appraisal of the performance of the complainant and was rather plausibly there to provide technical expertise.
In sum, even accepting that this constituted a procedural flaw, the Tribunal considers that it does not, in any event, amount to a substantial defect that would render the performance appraisal irregular and justify setting aside the impugned decision on that basis.
Keywords
procedural flaw; performance evaluation
|
