Performance report (285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Performance report
Total judgments found: 187
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 1075
70th Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of his appraisal report on the grounds that it had been drawn up during a period of conflict with his supervisors. However, the report was prepared jointly by three supervisors. "[S]uch joint participation obviated any danger there would have been in having a report drawn up by a supervisor with whom the complainant had had a clash of personality or other form of conflict".
Keywords:
application for quashing; bias; performance report;
Judgment 1063
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant impugns his performance report. Because he failed to follow the internal appeals procedure his complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1048
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant seeks the withdrawal of her performance report. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appraisal of her work was based on true facts; besides, the complainant's reservations were appended to the report.
Keywords:
application for quashing; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 1028
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was issued a reprimand after putting down insulting remarks about his supervisors on his staff report. Article 47(1) of the EPO Service Regulations says that employees "shall be entitled to make any comments" they consider relevant on their staff report. But the Tribunal holds that "the freedom of speech that provision safeguards plainly affords no excuse for insult and libel." The choice of sanction is wholly warranted.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 47(1) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; freedom of speech; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 973
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The case-law has laid down several principles in the matter of staff reports. First, the person approving the report will allow the reporting officer great freedom of expression. Secondly, the staff member's own comments may serve to remedy any error of judgment there may have been. Thirdly, it would be wrong to approve a report (a) if the reporting officer had made an obvious mistake of fact over some important point, (b) if he had neglected some essential fact, (c) if he had been grossly inconsistent or (d) if he could be shown to have been prejudiced."
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 972
66th Session, 1989
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The complainant's performance reports all show that he was a highly competent and dedicated officer who did valuable work for the organization, and letters in the dossier support the view that administrations in several countries appreciated the effectiveness of the programme he supervised. There is therefore no question of the non-renewal's being justified by unsatisfactory professional performance on his part."
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report; satisfactory service;
Judgment 920
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is clear form the evidence before the Tribunal that the complainant's objections to the report are unfounded. He knew already, because [his supervisor] had often told him, that his performance was considered poor. The period covered by the report was not too short because the minimum period a report may cover is three months."
Keywords:
performance report; period; rating; rebuttal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 919
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's "objections to the reckoning of his output are unsound. Not only is a search examiner required to produce a steady output of work, but the output expected of him was reckoned according to the period covered by the report. There is therefore no reason why the report period should not be five months, even if the more usual period is a year."
Keywords:
output; performance report; period; rebuttal; work appraisal;
Judgment 880
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The general rating is a synthesis of the marks in the staff member's report and of several imponderables that also count in giving a fair opinion of his services to the organisation."
Keywords:
discretion; elements; performance report; work appraisal;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often said, performance reports serve no purpose unless the supervisor has full freedom in commenting on performance. [...] The Tribunal will review the decision only where there has been blatant abuse of authority or breach of a formal or procedural rule".
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 841
63rd Session, 1987
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Organisation "was willing, exceptionally, to issue a qualified performance assessment certificate in the form specified by the laws of the Federal Republic as part of an overall settlement in which the complainant would be reimbursed in respect of certain expenses incurred by him and he in turn would be required to give a written statement that all his claims arising from his employment with the ESO had been settled and that he would refrain from making any further claims or take any further action against the Organisation. The complainant being unwilling to give such a statement, no settlement was reached. In the absence of agreement by both parties to the terms to the proposed settlement, the ESO is under no obligation to provide the complainant with the performance assessment he seeks."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 780, 840, 842
Keywords:
certificate of service; lack of consent; offer; performance report; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 820
62nd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Only in exceptional circumstances - such as it found in Judgment 182 - will the Tribunal have comments struck out of a performance report, because the exercise of discretion demands broad freedom of speech."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 182
Keywords:
application for quashing; competence of tribunal; discretion; judicial review; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 806
61st Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The procedural flaw the complainant alleges is that the EPO will fully let the appeal proceedings drag on so as to thwart his hopes of promotion. The plea fails. The EPO may not be taken to task for awaiting the Tribunal's ruling on the earlier complaint." In addition the EPO resorted to an extraordinary procedure so that his promotion could be awarded.
Keywords:
administrative delay; consequence; lack of injury; performance report; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; rebuttal;
Judgment 725
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant impugns a decision of the President approving his performance report for 1980 and 1981. Because the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress by awaiting the report of the Appeals Committee and the President's final decision before filing his complaint, the complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 724
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The procedure relating to Mr. V.'s first report lasted from 10 September 1980 until 7 June 1983, when the President went back on his decision to approve it. that was far too long. [...] For these reasons, and also in view of his age and record, the Tribunal will award him moral damages".
Keywords:
administrative delay; injury; moral injury; performance report;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or if he can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer's opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period."
Keywords:
bias; different appraisals; mistaken conclusion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 723
58th Session, 1986
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Director-General's implied endorsement of the performance report, his postponement of the increment and the transfer are all discretionary decisions and, moreover, ones that fall within an area in which the Tribunal will not ordinarily interfere."
Keywords:
discretion; increment withheld; judicial review; performance report; rating; transfer; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 722
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The impugned decision to approve the complainant's report for 1980 and 1981 is a discretionary one and may be set aside only on limited grounds such as a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or of law, failure to take account of relevant facts, abuse of authority or the drawing of mistaken conclusions from the evidence."
Keywords:
application for quashing; discretion; judicial review; performance report;
Considerations 4-7
Extract:
At the start of 1980 and 1981 the complainant's production target was the same as the previous year; his productivity was the same in 1980 as in 1979 and higher in 1981. Under the circumstances, having attained his production target in 1980 and 1981, the complainant rightly alleges a discrepancy between the two reports. The Tribunal holds that the complainant was under no duty to increase his output of his own accord.
Keywords:
different appraisals; judicial review; mistaken conclusion; output; performance report;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or if he can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer's opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period."
Keywords:
bias; different appraisals; judicial review; mistaken conclusion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 684
57th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to declare that a staff report on his performance is contrary to certain rules and not objective. The Tribunal dismisses the complaint inasmuch as no injury resulted from the acts which the complainant puts forward and he is no longer in the employ of the organisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 637, 638, 639
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action; performance report; separation from service;
Judgment 665
56th Session, 1985
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The reason given for non-renewal of the complainant's contract was unsatisfactory performance. The evaluation report for 1981 was signed long after the time limit laid down in the Staff Rules. Only a few weeks elapsed between the completion of the 1981 report and the processing of the 1982 report. As a result, the impugned decision took no account of the fact that between the complainant's two last performance reports he was not given time to add his objections or to show he could come up to expectation. The decision overlooked an essential fact and drew clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The complainant is entitled to damages.
Keywords:
administrative delay; contract; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; material damages; mistaken conclusion; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; performance report; right to reply; time limit; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 599
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
In this case "the criticisms are carefully and moderately phrased. Whether or not they are justified, it is not suggested that they do not express the honest opinion of the reporting officer." The decision to retain the report's original wording is "within the President's discretion and moreover within an area of his discretion in which the Tribunal does not normally entertain complaints. It is essential to the value of an appraisal report that the reporter should be granted great freedom of expression."
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; work appraisal;
Considerations
Extract:
"It is essential to the value of an appraisal report that the reporter should be granted great freedom of expression. Normally, if there be any errors of judgement on his part, they can be sufficiently remedied by the incorporation in the report of the staff member's point of view."
Keywords:
performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 597
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the criticisms in the report on the complainant suffer from no errors which could justify changing them. Reporters enjoy considerable freedom of expression, and that freedom was not in this case overstepped.
Keywords:
discretion; performance report;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
