Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Respondent¡¯s argument that no promise had been made was untenable. The evidence clearly indicated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Managers knew the Applicant would rely on the statements they made to her in regards to a one year contract extension. The Respondent repeatedly disregarded its own rules and regulations in the course of completing the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal and subsequently conducted a flawed rebuttal process which was biased and unfair and violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Promises made created expectancy of renewal - It is untenable for the Administration to claim that assurances made by managers are not express or implied promises of extension or renewal of a contract where the said managers at different times had assured the Applicant in writing that she should not entertain any fears concerning her contract extension for one year. Need for Organization to take responsibility - The efforts of the Respondent¡¯s Counsel at interpreting the communication between the parties on the issue of a year¡¯s contract extension imply that the Applicant¡¯s supervisors were engaged in doublespeak all through. This stance is wholly unnecessary as it is only proper that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS takes responsibility for the assurances given and promises made by its managers. Organization must follow its own guidelines - It is clear and unequivocal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Managers did not follow the provisions of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS own PRA Guidelines in reviewing the performance of the Applicant for the performance cycle of 2010. The argument that the said guidelines were optional and non-mandatory is entirely without merit in view of the jurisprudence of both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. The failure of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS to follow its own guidelines is indeed fatal to the Respondent¡¯s case. Unfair rebuttal and lack of due process - The rebuttal process was biased and unfair and violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights as it readily adopted most of the unfavourable views of the Applicant¡¯s supervisors without any independent assessment or reference to behavioural examples. Conflict of interest -The rebuttal process in this case was tainted by the presence of and participation of the Global Human Resources Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS in any capacity, who was not only a witness before the same rebuttal panel but had been part of the performance review team for the Applicant.