Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal held that the decisions to issue a Notice of Counsel and to require the Applicant to undergo remedial training did not affect his legal rights. The decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction was procedurally flawed because, contrary to the Department of Safety and Security Manual of Instruction on Use of Force Equipment Including Firearms (¡°DSS Weapons MOI¡±), the Chief of the SSS did not state the expected duration of the measure. The Tribunal rescinded the decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction without indicating the expected duration and ordered the...

The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant¡¯s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

The actions taken by the Chief of the Regional Service Center Entebbe (C/RSCE) towards the Applicant amounted to a clear breach of the authority entrusted to her as C/RSCE. Her conduct fell squarely within the definition contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 which is ¡°the improper use of a position of influence, power or authority against another person¡±. It was reasonably inferred that the C/RSCE either deliberately or negligently ignored the principles governing the role of a manager or supervisor contained in the 2014 Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The Respondent failed to...

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 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...

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...