±¬ÁÏÍø

Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment due to his poor performance...

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member¡¯s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...

The Tribunal concluded that there was cogent evidence that extraneous factors were taken into account in the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had sufficiently discharged his burden of proof. He showed that the actions of the Respondent¡¯s agents were unfair, improperly motivated, and wholly arbitrary.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision was in violation of an express written promise of renewal for three months by the head of her mission.

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/156, Gehr ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/156, Gehr ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the element of the application concerning conversion to permanent appointment was not receivable as the Applicant had not requested management evaluation of this decision. In respect to the receivable elements of the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal. However, the Tribunal found that the decision not to renew his appointment was unlawful, as it was based on a flawed performance management process. In particular, in the Applicant¡¯s first performance cycle, there were significant delays in the implementation of the various...

Downsizing: The Tribunal found that the decision to cut the Applicant¡¯s post and to not renew her appointment beyond its expiry was made in the context of the downsizing of the Mission. It was a rational decision made in light of the needs of the Organization. It was made and conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the information circulars. It was, with the exception of the short delay in conveying the actual decision, procedurally regular and lawful.Comparative review process: The Tribunal concluded noted that the functional title of the Applicant¡¯s post did not match the...

Restructuring process: The Tribunal concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in either the creation of Oversight and Support Division (OSD) or the subsequent restructuring/realignment process. Both were undertaken in a fully transparent manner, with full consultation of all staff members including the Applicant. Sufficiency of reasons: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given reasons for the decision on more than one occasion including those conveyed to her by her staff representative following a meeting with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Senior Management. These reasons were based on the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant¡¯s contract should not be renewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member¡¯s contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party¡¯s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...