|
|
 |
|
|
Performance (955,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Performance
Total judgments found: 17
Judgment 5113
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
“[I]n terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. […] ‘[…] ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’” […] in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.”
The Tribunal finds that the organisation breached its duty of care in its treatment of the complainant. […]
There is no evidence that the concerns regarding the complainant’s performance were brought to his attention at any time prior to […], when the completed PAR was forwarded to him. The decision not to renew his appointment was taken just three weeks later. As a result, he was not afforded an opportunity to address or rectify the alleged shortcomings in his performance, nor was he granted a reasonable period within which any improvement could have been expected to occur.”
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract; performance; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
“[A]n organisation may not decide to terminate or not renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance unless it has properly followed its appraisal procedures and given the staff member a fair opportunity to improve […]. However, in the present case, the non-renewal was not based on unsatisfactory performance but rather on alleged budgetary constraints. Therefore, although the appraisal process was manifestly flawed, such irregularities do not render the non-renewal decision unlawful and do not warrant the setting aside of the decision insofar as it was not performance-related.”
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 5100
141st Session, 2026
ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to extend her contract for one year only.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; extension of contract; non-renewal of contract; performance; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 5012
140th Session, 2025
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the GCF’s decision not to confirm him in his post and to terminate his appointment at the end of his extended probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; due process; performance; performance evaluation; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 5011
140th Session, 2025
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the GCF’s decision to extend his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; duty to inform; performance; performance evaluation; probation report; probationary period;
Judgment 5009
140th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “Effective performance” rating contained in her appraisal report covering the period from June 2017 to May 2018, as well as a comment made in such report about her having been on extended leave and having worked part-time during the appraisal period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalled the principles which govern the Tribunal's consideration of contentious appraisal reports, set out in Judgment 4654, considerations 2 and 3, and recalled in Judgment 4796, consideration 5. It also referred to Judgment 4902, consideration 9, which stated that “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): 4654, 4713, 4786, 4787, 4796, 4902
Keywords:
judicial review; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Even if there is an arguable flaw in an evaluation report, there are limits on what powers the Tribunal might exercise if established. This limitation was adverted to in Judgment 4894, consideration 6: '[T]he additional relief sought by the complainant [...] includes that the text in his staff report for 2009 be amended by order of the Tribunal. But 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)'.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4786, 4894
Keywords:
claim; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; role of the tribunal;
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
The complainant’s legal argument in her brief is advanced under one heading only, namely: '[t]he performance appraisal document created a distorted picture and undermined the work of the [c]omplainant, which constitutes bullying and harassment'. Much of the argumentation is directed to establishing what, as she alleges, was a 'hostile and abusive [work] environment' and, additionally what in the complainant’s view was the appropriate evaluation, namely 'Outstanding performance'. The latter invites the Tribunal to undertake a role it eschews […] and the former is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the appraisal, at least at the high level of generality argued by the complainant […] The complainant’s rejoinder also does not raise any argument of substance concerning the lawfulness of the appraisal and again mainly focuses on a generalized complaint about the environment in which the complainant had worked. […] No case is made out that the appraisal was unlawful. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed.
Keywords:
harassment; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s previous period of unblemished service is not necessarily a mitigating factor […].
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; performance; proportionality;
Judgment 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal also recalls its well-established case law regarding its limited power of review of decisions relating to performance evaluations. As stated in Judgment 4267, consideration 4, “assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement, signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3006, consideration 7, and 3062, consideration 3) [...]”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3062, 4267
Keywords:
judicial review; limits; performance; performance evaluation; performance report;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant […] seeks the annulment of her 29 October 2020 [Performance Appraisal Report – PAR], covering the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020, and the re-opening of the performance appraisal procedure for that period to correct the substantive and procedural errors committed in her PAR. However, given the time that has elapsed since the complainant’s separation from the organisation, the Tribunal finds no useful purpose to order the re-opening of the performance appraisal procedure for the aforementioned period.
As the complainant has established that her 29 October 2020 PAR and the resulting decision not to renew her appointment were tainted by an error of law, […] the complainant’s 29 October 2020 PAR must be annulled.
Keywords:
decision quashed; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; performance report;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; complaint allowed; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; testimony; witness;
Judgment 4902
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.
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:
performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4901
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.
Consideration 11
Extract:
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.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
Keywords:
performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.
Keywords:
breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal disagrees with IOM’s assertion that the complaint is allegedly irreceivable (for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as the underlying appeal was not filed within the applicable deadline), insofar as it concerns the decisions, communicated to the complainant on 13 June 2019, to establish the PIP (including any alleged violation of the SES process) and to extend the complainant’s contract for a three-month period corresponding to the PIP’s duration. The Tribunal considers that a staff member may challenge the decision to subject her to a PIP in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the PIP process. In Judgment 3713, consideration 3, the Tribunal recalled that:
“[I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13).” (See also Judgment 3890, consideration 5.)
In the present case, the decision taken at the end of the PIP process was a decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract due to underperformance and this decision resulted in the complainant being separated from IOM. This being so, the Tribunal considers that the above cited case law from Judgments 3713, consideration 3, and 3890, consideration 5, is equally applicable in a case such as the present. And given that the complainant impugns her final contract extension and ultimate non-renewal, it is of no relevance whether the issue of her prior three-month extension is receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198, 3713, 3890
Keywords:
final decision; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; step in the procedure; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 20
Extract:
[A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.
Keywords:
breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Considerations 23-24
Extract:
[T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
“As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’”
Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Consideration 7
Extract:
With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).” (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713
Keywords:
judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4770
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s previous period of unblemished service with the [Organization] was not, by itself, a mitigating factor (see Judgment 3083, consideration 20), even though in some cases it can be (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083, 4457
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; performance;
Judgment 4678
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its well-established case law regarding decisions concerning staff performance appraisals and renewal of fixed-term appointments. Organizations have wide discretion in taking such decisions, which are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgment 4170, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein). Where the reason for not renewing a contract is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of a staff member, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of her or his service, the organization can base its decision only on an assessment carried out in compliance with established rules (see, in particular, Judgment 2991, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein). This presupposes that the person in question has been informed in advance of what is expected of her or him, in particular by the communication of a precise description of the objectives set (see Judgment 3148, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991, 3148, 4170
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4543
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that under its settled case law, 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. The Tribunal will set aside a performance evaluation report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 3692, consideration 8, 3842, consideration 7, and 4010, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692, 3842, 4010
Keywords:
discretion; performance; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance;
Judgment 4542
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; performance; probationary period;
Judgment 4513
134th Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to convert his appointment as a graduate when it expired and to terminate it.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is a discretionary decision, but if the decision rests on poor performance, the assessment of that performance has to be made in accordance with the rules established for that purpose; this is allied with an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see, in particular, Judgment 4289, under 7, and the case law cited therein). These principles are also applicable when, as in the present case, a decision is to be taken on whether to convert a graduate appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period or a limited period.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4289
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; performance; short-term;
Judgment 4502
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the excerpts from Judgment 4221, consideration 11, quoted [...] show, the classification of a post is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see also Judgment 4000, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000, 4221
Keywords:
performance; post classification;
|
|
|
|
|
