Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision to maintain the staff member¡¯s performance rating ¡°C ¨C Partially meets expectations¡± constituted a reviewable administrative decision that had direct legal effect on his employment. It observed that under the applicable legal framework, a rating of ¡°Partially meets expectations¡± justifies a determination that a salary increment is not warranted, and that the increment shall be withheld pending the outcome of a PIP. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the...

A staff member¡¯s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1030, para. 34).

The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

Accordin...

The Tribunal found the application to be receivable on the basis that a negative performance rating does produce legal consequences for the affected staff member and is reviewable.

In the Tribunal¡¯s view, the Respondent failed to show that the USG engaged the Applicant in a proper performance discussion or provided sufficient feedback of a performance shortcoming as required by secs. 7.1, 7.2 and 10.1 of ST/AI/2021/4. he Tribunal found no evidence of a discussion between the USG and the Applicant which could be classified as a performance milestone discussion, one which sets out clear targets...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration¡¯s conclusion that the staff member¡¯s performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board¡¯s confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management¡¯s prior informal evaluation of the staff member¡¯s performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not discharged the burden of proving improper motives or bias against the Respondent.

Of all the eight alleged acts/omissions on which the Applicant based the complaint that his "partially satisfactory" rating was motivated by bias and ill-motive were speculative and the impugned assessment was not tainted by bias or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the fact that the Talent Management Review Group did not afford the Applicant an opportunity to present his case could not, ground a finding of bias and improper motive.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any error of law or fact in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by concluding that ST/AI/2002/3 applied to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF, as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook establishes the procedure that a staff member must follow should they wish to rebut the content of their performance report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the principle articulated in Villamoran v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), which holds that administrative issuances have greater legal authority over manuals such as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook, only where there is a conflict between guidelines and manuals and a properly promulgated...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether Mr Gehr was prejudiced or discommoded by the fact that his rebuttal was conducted by the rebuttal panel established in 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find that Mr Gehr¡¯s obligation to engage with a panel established pursuant to ST/AI/2010/5 was, in and of itself, sufficient to merit an award of compensation, in the absence of specific harm or prejudice arising therefrom. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the breach was not of sufficient seriousness to merit a compensatory award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety.