>> de | en | fr  N° 35-2009 / 13.05.2009
 

2009 appraisal and promotion exercise

Statistics relating to the appraisal and the overall distribution with respect to performance levels, and to the distribution of the provisional formal intentions

Recommendations of the AD and AST Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committees

The Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committees for the function groups AD and AST have examined the statistics relating to the appraisal and promotion exercise in accordance with Article 7(8) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and Article 5(3) of the General Implementing Provisions of Art. 45 of the Staff Regulations.

Under these provisions, the Committees may address recommendations to the Directorates-General and to the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration. They also state that the Committees’ analysis should be made known to staff.

This Administrative Notice constitutes the notification required by the abovementioned provisions.

The Committees examined information relating to all the Directorates-General except the External Service, the Cabinets and the Ad hoc Group. Information relating to these bodies will be examined at a later date.

At the end of their examination, the Committees made the following observations and recommendations.

• The AD Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee

  • The Committee observes that one Directorate-General has made a mistake in its calculations.
     
  • The Committee analysed the appraisal rates at performance level IA in grades AD5 and AD6 to ensure that the reduction provided for in Article 6(4) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations had not been applied entirely to the recruitment grades. The Committee identified one Directorate-General in which this had happened. The Directorate-General in question has decided on an immediate review of its proposals with a view to improving this rate, as a result of which the Committee has not made an individual recommendation.
     
  • The Committee observes disparities in the appraisal of performances at level III. Thus, while 18 Directorates-General did not use performance level III at all, others used it in as many as 6% of cases.

    The Committee asks the Directorates-General, in the light of these data, to pay particular attention to the appraisal of performances which might result in level III and to ensure that any reduction in the assessment contained in the report in comparison with previous reports is duly justified by the performance demonstrated over the reference period.
     
  • The Committee observes that, in one Directorate-General, the proportion of officials promoted during the 2008 exercise who could be assigned to performance level II during the 2009 appraisal exercise is greater than 90%. The Directorate-General concerned has decided on an immediate review of its proposals with a view to lowering this rate, as a result of which the Committee has not made an individual recommendation.
     
  • The Committee notes that for officials in grade AD14 the attribution rate of performance levels IA and IB is, generally speaking, significantly lower than 8% and 22%. The Committee notes that attribution of those performance levels has no impact in terms of promotion for officials in grade AD14, from which no promotion is possible under the General Implementing Provisions of Art. 45 of the Staff Regulations.
     
  • The Committee observes that in some Directorates-General the points quota available per performance level has not been used up.

    It asks the Directorates-General concerned to analyse the non-use of points and to ensure that the consideration of comparative merits which led to the allocation of the points has been correctly carried out.
     
  • The Committee observes significant differences between Directorates-General in the percentage of officials who could be awarded 4 promotion points within performance level II.
     
  • The Committee also notes that, on the basis of the information available at this stage of the procedure, the vast majority of officials to whom the convergence plan provided for in Annex II to the General Implementing Provisions of Art. 45 of the Staff Regulations would apply could be promoted within their theoretical promotion time.
     
  • The Committee notes that there are no significant statistical or structural differences between places of employment.

In conclusion, the Committee requests that the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration take account of the above aspects and anomalies in its evaluation of the appraisal exercise provided for in Article 10 of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.

It also asks DG ADMIN to examine, in a select working party, the action taken by the Directorates-General in response to the recommendations it has made as a result of its work.

• The AST Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee

  • The Committee observes that one Directorate-General has made mistakes in its calculations.
     
  • The Committee analysed the variations in:
     
    • the appraisal rates at performance level IA in grades AST1, AST2 and AST3 compared with the other AST grades.
       
    • the appraisal rates at performance level IA in career streams C and D compared with the AST grades.

    Having observed these variations, the Committee recommends that every Directorate-General should ensure a balanced treatment of all officials belonging to the AST function group, whatever their grade or career stream. The Committee also asks DG ADMIN to take account of this aspect in its evaluation of the appraisal exercise as provided for in Article 10 of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.
     

  • The Committee observes variations in the appraisal of performances at level III. Thus, while 10 Directorates-General did not use performance level III at all, others used it in as many as 6% of cases.

    The Committee asks the Directorates-General, in the light of these data, to pay particular attention to the appraisal of performances which might result in level III and to ensure that any reduction in the assessment contained in the appraisal report in comparison with previous reports is duly justified by the performance demonstrated over the reference period. The Committee reminds the Directorates-General that it is also possible to request derogations for this performance level. The Committee also asks DG ADMIN to examine the distribution of performance appraisals at level III across the AD and AST function groups, as well as across the different grades of the AST function group, in its evaluation of the appraisal exercise provided for in Article 10 of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.
     
  • The Committee observes differences between Directorates-General in the percentage of officials who could be awarded 4 promotion points within performance level II.
     
  • The Committee observes that in some Directorates-General the points quota available per performance level has not been used up.

    It asks the Directorates-General concerned to analyse the non-use of points and to ensure that the consideration of comparative merits which led to the allocation of the points has been correctly carried out.
     
  • The Committee observes that, in three Directorates-General, the proportion of officials promoted during the 2008 exercise who could be assigned to performance level II during the 2009 appraisal exercise is equal to or greater than 90%. Two of the DGs concerned have decided on an immediate review of their proposals with a view to improving this rate, as a result of which the Committee has not made an individual recommendation in their case. The Committee notes that, without a review, the rate would be 91% in the Legal Service.

    In the spirit of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case No. F-19/06, the Committee asks the Directorates-General concerned to pay particular attention to the appraisal of the performance of officials promoted in 2008.
     
  • The Committee notes that, on the basis of the information available at this stage of the procedure, the vast majority of officials to whom the convergence plan provided for in Annex II to the General Implementing Provisions of Art. 45 of the Staff Regulations would apply could be promoted within their theoretical promotion time.
     
  • The Committee notes that there are no significant statistical or structural differences between places of employment.

top

   Author: ADMIN A6