±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent¡¯s explanation as to why the Applicant¡¯s post was the one chosen for abolition is well substantiated. There was a genuine large scale restructuring due to severe budget cuts, which resulted in other staff members being separated from service, including the Applicant, and there was a legitimate explanation for the recruitments and vacancies that were not cancelled. The presumption of regularity was satisfied. Since the Applicant cannot convincingly show why his post should not have been abolished even though the posts of dozens of other staff members...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute authorizes ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to order suspension of a contested decision only ¡°during the pendency of the management evaluation¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in Ms Rees¡¯ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made any error of law or fact in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by concluding that ST/AI/2002/3 applied to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF, as the ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Handbook establishes the procedure that a staff member must follow should they wish to rebut the content of their performance report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the principle articulated in Villamoran v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), which holds that administrative issuances have greater legal authority over manuals such as the ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Handbook, only where there is a conflict between guidelines and manuals and a properly promulgated...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether Mr Gehr was prejudiced or discommoded by the fact that his rebuttal was conducted by the rebuttal panel established in 2011. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find that Mr Gehr¡¯s obligation to engage with a panel established pursuant to ST/AI/2010/5 was, in and of itself, sufficient to merit an award of compensation, in the absence of specific harm or prejudice arising therefrom. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the breach was not of sufficient seriousness to merit a compensatory award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in its entirety.