Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s argument that this was a case of non-renewal and found that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated on the grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance for the period of 2007 to 2010. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the performance evaluation report (¡°PER¡±) for 2010 cannot be lawfully relied upon to justify the finding of unsatisfactory performance as the Applicant had no opportunity of a meaningful rebuttal. Therefore, the termination of the Applicant¡¯s contract on the basis of poor performance was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that no proper...

As regards her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that the ratings resulting from the rebuttal processes had replaced the initial ratings and that hence the e-Pas reports cannot be annulled. Concerning the inclusion in the OSF of documents arising from the rebuttal processes relating to her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that only the documents specified in ST/AI/2002/3 and ST/AI/2010/5 are to be included in her OSF. It also found that the irregularities in relation to her e-Pas reports were of such gravity as to render them meaningless and that they are thus not be included in her OSF. The...

. The Applicant claimed that the reason for the contested decision was not disclosed to her until the management evaluation stage and that the reason given was not supported legally or factually. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF was obliged to provide the Applicant with a reason for the non-renewal of her contract when she requested it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that according to the performance ratings provided prior to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract, her performance, as a matter of law, cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory based on secs. 5.2 and 10.2 of CF/AI/2010-001 (Administrative instruction...

Receivability: The Tribunal held that the Applicants had standing pursuant to art. 2.1 of its Statute and found the applications receivable. Merits: Was the restructuring genuine? The Tribunal found that, although the retrenchment exercise resulted in the non-renewal of the Applicants¡¯ appointments, the motivation for it was genuine as it implemented General Assembly resolution 66/264. Was the restructuring implemented through a fair and lawful process? Consultations: The Tribunal found that the Administration did not consult the staff or staff representatives about the posts to be abolished...

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...

The Tribunal found that the Administration violated the rights of the Applicant by not including the PAD cycle year 2009 when making the termination decision in July 2010. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision and compensation for material damage equivalent to the loss of salary until her early retirement date on 1 May 2011. When terminating a contract for unsatisfactory service, the PAD reports to be taken into consideration must be the ones immediately preceding the non-renewal decision, so the PAD cycle years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for a termination decision made in...

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent¡¯s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant¡¯s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant¡¯s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...

The parties agreed that the facts were not contested and that the issue for the Tribunal¡¯s consideration was whether the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities was proportionate to the Applicant¡¯s conduct. Taking the mitigation circumstances into consideration, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the sanction was not proportionate to the facts and substituted it for the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnities. The Tribunal agrees with the facts that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was improper and that she...

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.