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.
|