±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT identified several deviations in the performance evaluation procedures, but found that some of them resulted from the Applicant¡¯s actions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that no harm warranting compensation was caused to the Applicant, including to her career, by the identified deviations in the performance evaluation process as the Applicant separated from service for medical reasons. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the decision to reassign the Applicant within the same department was lawful. The application was rejected.

The Applicant also contested the adequacy of compensation paid to her for having been placed in a hostile work environment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration was obliged, at the expiration of the three years, to make a decision to either separate the Applicant or to grant her a permanent appointment. The Administration¡¯s reliance on former staff rule 112.2(b) (on exceptions to staff rules) to further extend her probationary contract was improper as the procedural requirements of that staff rule were not met as the Applicant did not agree to the extension. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the...

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration¡¯s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant¡¯s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant¡¯s supervisors¡¯ assessment...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General acted properly within his broad discretion in deciding to take no action in relation to the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment, and the appeal was dismissed.

The procedures set out in ST/AI/2002/3 on the performance appraisal system were not complied with. While section 8.3 requires that as soon as a performance shortcoming is identified, the first reporting officer should discuss the situation with the staff member and take steps in consultation with him/her to rectify the situation, in the present case the Applicant received the rating ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± without being informed through the performance appraisal system of his shortcomings and thus without being given the opportunity to improve his performance. Since the...

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

While finding that there had been a procedural flaw in the FOPA evaluation, inasmuch as the Applicant had been denied a rebuttal, the Tribunal considered that there was not causal effect between this flaw and the non-renewal decision, noting that the contested decision refers only to the third and last appraisal, which was made in accordance with the applicable rules. Resolution 59/296 and reappointment of 300 series staff members under 100 series: The said resolution authorises the Secretary-General to reappoint staff members holding an appointment under the 300 series of former Staff Rules...

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent¡¯s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires ¡°maximum dispatch¡± in the completion of the rebuttal process.

Receivability/administrative decision: Preparatory measures such as the decision not to prepare a work plan for the purpose of appraising a staff member¡¯s performance can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal. Rebuttal procedure: It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that a staff member may not challenge before the Tribunal his/her performance rating unless he/she has previously initiated the rebuttal process provided for in this administrative instruction.

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent¡¯s case. ±¬ÁÏÍøON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant¡¯s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant¡¯s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...