51�Թ�

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant’s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of “successfully meets expectations”. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant’s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...

If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of “successfully meets performance expectations”, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...

Therefore, the facts resulting from this investigation were not established to a sufficient standard that would permit the Administration to later rely on them to act against the Applicant once he became a staff member. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Administration acted as a reasonable decision maker in deciding to terminate the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment and finds the contested decision unlawful and decides to rescind it. The contested decision is rescinded. Under art. 10.5(a) of its Statute, the Respondent may elect to pay the Applicant compensation in lieu of the...

Whether the Applicant’s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO… Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant’s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to “proactively assist” the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...

The Applicant’s challenge against her first reporting officer’s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (UNDT/2020/030 and 2020-UNAT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant’s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant’s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant’s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent’s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant’s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...

The decision to change the Applicant’s reporting line is moot because the Administration amended that decision.The contents of the email in question do not produce any direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms and conditions of appointment, since the email only announces future anticipated revisions of the terms of references. The record confirms that there was a change to the Applicant’s reporting line. The change to the designation of the Applicant’s FRO and SRO are contestable administrative decisions. The contested change to the Applicant’s reporting officers falls under...

The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel was properly constituted. The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel’s review of the evidence complied with the applicable norms. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s medical condition was not an excuse for his reported poor performance. The Tribunal found that because the Applicant’s report of abuse of authority against his supervisor was only filed after the performance appraisal was completed, it had no bearing on the appraisal.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was “clear and unambiguous” enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant’s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.

The impugned “decision” carried no “direct legal consequences” given that it was not final and remains open to challenge by way of rebuttal.