Judgment No. 4978
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her staff report for 2012.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance report; rating; complaint dismissed
Considerations 6 and 13
Extract:
The complainant’s requests that the Tribunal decides the case and not refer it back to the EPO invites the Tribunal to determine the markings she should be awarded under each head of evaluation and the overall performance rating. The request is rejected by reference to the general principles recalled in Judgment 4977, consideration 2. The evaluation of a staff member’s performance falls within the discretion of the officers charged with conducting it. Since the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that made by the persons or bodies responsible for assessing an employee’s merits, the request would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgments 4893, consideration 5, and 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal however observes that it may, if appropriate, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
The complainant’s challenge to the merits of the contested staff report is also unfounded. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appeals Committee undertook a detailed, balanced, coherent and persuasive analysis of the evaluation made in the staff report and the methodology adopted. The Committee addressed in some detail the markings the complainant’s reporting and countersigning officers awarded in the contested staff report and reasonably concluded that their evaluation was flawed to the extent that the comments made in the category attitude to work and dealings with others were unbalanced and thereupon recommended the staff report be set aside in that respect. The Tribunal determines that the Committee, which in its opinion noted the discretion which a reporting officer enjoys in conducting an assessment, properly acted within its review powers when it so concluded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4786, 4893, 4977
Keywords
performance report; rating; judicial review; performance evaluation; role of the tribunal
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant’s request to declare the Appeals Committee’s opinion null and void is irreceivable, as the EPO submits. This is because, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4791, consideration 3, 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721, 4791
Keywords
step in the procedure; report of the internal appeals body
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal determines, as it did in consideration 12 of Judgment 4713 on that complaint (citing Judgments 4543, consideration 8, and 3380, consideration 9) that the complainant, who bears the burden to provide evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal that her allegations of bias or partiality are well founded, has not discharged that burden. Her pleas of bias and partiality repeated in this complaint are therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4543, 4713
Keywords
burden of proof; performance report; rating; bias
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay in internal proceedings will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as a lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal (see Judgments 4804, consideration 5, 4563, consideration 14, and 3160, considerations 16 and 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4563, 4804
Keywords
moral injury; moral damages; delay in internal procedure
|
