±¬ÁÏÍø

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant¡¯s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years ¡°partially meets expectations¡±. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.

Whenever the administration decides a non-renewal of appointment on the grounds of poor performance, the Tribunal has to verify if the administration has complied with the relevant procedure. The application of ST/AI/2002/3 is not binding regarding staff members appointed for a period of less than one year. Having said that, once a supervisor decides to apply it, the said administrative must be fully complied with.According to ST/AI/2002/3, when the holder of a fixed-term appointment receives the lowest performance rating, the administration has the right not to renew his/her contract. When...

Outcome: On the balance of probabilities it appears that the applicant was unable to perform his duties at an adequate level and the most significant cause of this situation was not lack of training or assistance, but his own attitude. In fairness to the applicant, more should have been done to help his transition from his outside employment to the requirements of his new employment. In light of the rebuttal process being made available to the applicant, he did not suffer any actual detriment from the lack of an ePAS and had the benefit of a rebuttal process. The application is dismissed in...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the restructuring and the creation of the new post were undertaken in good faith and the decisions to abolish the applicant¡¯s post and to end his contract were proper. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that the applicant was told about the new post and invited to apply. As to the failure to complete the work plan and performance evaluation reports, this was irrelevant because it was not the reason for the non-renewal of the applicant¡¯s contract, and, in any case, was due to the applicant himself. Outcome: The application was dismissed.

The applicant was the only 15-day candidate who was interviewed. Interviews of 30-day candidates took place the day following the applicant¡¯s interview. The applicant was not successful; instead, a 30-day candidate was appointed. The applicant submitted that the Administration failed to properly assess her suitability prior to considering other candidates and thus failed to follow the selection procedures applicable to 15-day candidates under ST/AI/2006/3. The respondent argued that the candidate was given priority consideration and was found unsuitable for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the...

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate ¡°rebuttal¡± procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...

The e-PAS report for 2007-2008. The Applicant¡¯s behaviour was not appropriate or cooperative, placing her first reporting officer in a difficult position. Nevertheless, under ST/AI/2002/3, it is the duty of the first reporting officer, as well as the head of department and managers with supervisory authority, to make sure that the staff member¡¯s individual work plan is completed on time, and the Organization remains ultimately responsible for the implementation of the e-PAS system. The e-PAS report for 2008-2009. A one-year delay in signing-off on an e-PAS report is clearly improper under sec...

The Tribunal observes that the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...

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.

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.