Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

At the relevant time, the Applicant was serving as Senior Coordination Officer for the Global Water Operators Partnerships Alliance (¡°GWOPA¡±), an alliance of partners promoting the Water Operators Partnership established by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat. He was heading the GWOPA Secretariat and was sitting ex officio on the GWOPA Steering Committee as representative of the GWOPA Secretariat. The contested decisions were notified to the Applicant in two memoranda sent on the same day.; The Tribunal identified the following legal issues:; What was the nature of the contested decisions? Was the Applicant subjected...

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± and the Applicant¡¯s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel¡¯s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant¡¯s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member¡¯s terms of employment...

There was a final decision because the performance rating of ¡°partially satisfactory¡± became binding on the Applicant once the Rebuttal Panel issued its recommendation of 25 May 2018. The application, however, was not receivable because the Applicant failed to prove that there were direct legal consequences stemming from the Rebuttal Panel¡¯s decision.

The application in respect of the alleged non-compliance with the second agreement is premature, and as such not receivable, because the Applicant has not followed the mandatory dispute resolution process contained in said settlement agreement concluded in July 2017. The Applicant¡¯s multiples and generic complaints that the Organization has failed to follow its own rules and procedures, and her assertions regarding the conduct of her current and former reporting officers at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC do not constitute administrative decisions under Article 2(1)(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The Tribunal DECIDES to...

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant¡¯s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of ¡°successfully meets expectations¡±. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant¡¯s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...

If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...

Therefore, the facts resulting from this investigation were not established to a sufficient standard that would permit the Administration to later rely on them to act against the Applicant once he became a staff member. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Administration acted as a reasonable decision maker in deciding to terminate the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment and finds the contested decision unlawful and decides to rescind it. The contested decision is rescinded. Under art. 10.5(a) of its Statute, the Respondent may elect to pay the Applicant compensation in lieu of the...

Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO¡­ Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant¡¯s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to ¡°proactively assist¡± the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against her first reporting officer¡¯s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/030 and 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant¡¯s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...