Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that after a first positive evaluation in 2012, the Applicant¡¯s first reporting officer had put the Applicant on notice in respect of what she perceived as shortcomings in the Applicant¡¯s performance, at the beginning of the performance cycle 2013/14. It found, however, that the Rebuttal process was marked by serious procedural flaws and ruled that the final decision on the rebuttal, confirming the Applicant¡¯s PAS rating for the cycle 2013, was illegal and could not stand. Therefore, and since the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 30 June 2014 was...

The Dispute Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and rejected the application. Application of ST/AI/2010/5 on Performance Management and Development System: This administrative instruction does not apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, which is a separately administered fund, as it has not explicitly accepted its applicability, as per ST/SGB/2004/9 on Procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances. Obligation to provide an opportunity to improve performance prior to non-renewal: Absent any specific provision in the applicable rules, the Organization has no legal obligation to take any...

The Tribunal rescinded the contested decisions and awarded USD50,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claims relating to the performance evaluation of his FRO and his SRO¡¯s theoretical negative influence of future performance appraisals to the Applicant¡¯s detriment were not receivable because they either did not form part of the terms and conditions of his employment or had no direct legal consequences on his terms and conditions of employment. With respect to the negative comments and rating of the SRO in his 2015-2016 e-PAS, the Tribunal noted the successful roll-back of the e-PAS and concluded that there no longer existed a live issue because he had...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was generally not receivable because the Applicant was specifically challenging MEU¡¯s negative responses to her various requests for management evalution. This conclusion nothwithstanding, the Tribunal reviewed each of the Applicant¡¯s claims and concluded that they were not receivable because she: failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in relation to her claim that there was a ¡°wall of silence¡± was estopped from re-litigating her claim in relation to the delay in releasing the results of...

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO¡¯s negative comments and rating in the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSMIL. Thus, the SRO¡¯s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment

The Tribunal found that there were no good reasons to depart from the principle of renewal pending completion of a rebuttal process. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s performance was not fairly evaluated, notably during the third and fourth evaluation cycles. Thus, these performance appraisals could not be relied upon to justify a decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. As a consequence, the Tribunal found that the third reason for not renewing the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely that she...

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...

Since a PIP was not put in place prior to the expiry of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, she could not rely on section 10.5 of ST/AI/2010/5 for the renewal of her contract. The Administration extended the Applicant¡¯s contract several times despite her refusal to accept the offers of contract extension. These extensions were deemed contrary to a strict application of the requirements of section 4.4 of ST/AI 2013/1 and inconsistent with administrative regularity. However, MONUSCO continued to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract in the hope of persuading her to cooperate with the PIP. It was...

The Applicant did not show that the findings of the Rebuttal Panel together with her final performance appraisal resulted in an administrative decision to her detriment. Although the delay in finalizing the Rebuttal Panel Report was far in excess of the period contemplated under ST/AI/2010/5, the delay did not constitute an error of procedure in light of the reasons advanced by the Respondent. In accordance with section 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5, it was mandatory for the Administration to place the report of the Rebuttal Panel on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and that there was no exercise...