±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr...

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...

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 Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui¡¯s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an ¡°administrative decision¡± and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance evaluation an ¡°administrative decision¡± with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding her application receivable.

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance as ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two ¡°landmark¡± performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

It is within the discretion of the Applicant¡¯s SRO to make comments on her performance. ¡°[M]aking comments in an ePAS about the need for a staff member to improve performance in certain core values and competencies is an important tool for the managers to carry out their functions in the interest of the Organization and, hence, their willingness to do so need to be supported and boosted¡±. It represents a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees.

The comments in question do not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal. They are constructive...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had performance shortcomings as evidenced by the 2016 to 2019 ePADs and by the fact that he failed to initiate the 2020 ePAD.

The Applicant was aware or could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the required performance standards.

The Applicant was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standard and the Administration did not err by not availing him more opportunities to improve considering the totality of circumstances in this case.

The totality of circumstances supported a finding that the termination of the Applicant's appointment was...

The application fails in its entirety.