±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

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-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-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 ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

Accordin...

Compensation in lieu is ¡°not related at all to the economic loss suffered¡± (see Nega 2023-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

There is sufficient documentary evidence on record showing that the Applicant was properly made aware of the performance shortcomings he needed to address and improve. He was placed on a PIP that was structured and designed specifically for him, and he was provided with adequate support and guidance to improve.

Having identified, documented, and addressed the Applicant¡¯s performance shortcomings through the applicable rules, the decision not to renew his FTA based on unsatisfactory service, taken after the Applicant was found not to have improved his performance despite being given the...

The essential question for determination on appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the alleged misconduct of creating a hostile work environment and giving of gifts was proved in accordance with the standard of clear and convincing evidence. In other words, did the evidence establish the alleged misconduct to a high degree of probability? At its essence, therefore, this case involves strongly contested disputes of fact about whether AAC conducted himself in a manner that was abusive and created a hostile working environment. The Administration says he did. AAC strongly denies it. Thus...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT relied on the Appellant¡¯s statement to ascertain that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, at the time ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF sought to make the correction from termination to non-renewal, the staff member was already separated from service, and it was, therefore, too late to reverse the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s separation from service was termination on grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance and that the Administration¡¯s decision to reverse the decision was untimely and ineffective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to reverse ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had been deprived of a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law when it applied ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale¡¯s performance was without legal basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made several errors of law when it found ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not accord any deference to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered all arguments made on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...