Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT identified several deviations in the performance evaluation procedures, but found that some of them resulted from the Applicant¡¯s actions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that no harm warranting compensation was caused to the Applicant, including to her career, by the identified deviations in the performance evaluation process as the Applicant separated from service for medical reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the decision to reassign the Applicant within the same department was lawful. The application was rejected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Applicant also contested the adequacy of compensation paid to her for having been placed in a hostile work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration was obliged, at the expiration of the three years, to make a decision to either separate the Applicant or to grant her a permanent appointment. The Administration¡¯s reliance on former staff rule 112.2(b) (on exceptions to staff rules) to further extend her probationary contract was improper as the procedural requirements of that staff rule were not met as the Applicant did not agree to the extension. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant¡¯s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children¡¯s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...

Outcome: The Applicant¡¯s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant¡¯s file and pay the Applicant six months¡¯ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that, in the circumstances of the Applicant having informed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDTthat he will not file an application because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the proceedings have been abandoned. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cloased the case for want of prosecution.

The Initial Reprimand. The provisions of ST/AI/292 and the doctrine of audi alteram partem were not observed in that the Applicant was not afforded an opportunity to see and to comment on the reprimand before it was issued for which reason he had no opportunity to comment on it in advance. The Reinstated Reprimand. The Tribunal identified the following difficulties with the Reinstated Reprimand: (1) as with the Initial Reprimand, the Applicant was not permitted to see and to comment on the Reinstated Reprimand in accordance with ST/AI/292; (2) the rules and regulations of the Organization...