�山����

To determine the legality of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined: Whether the first PIP complied with the applicable rules The Tribunal found that the duty to inform the Applicant of his shortcomings and to assist him in improving his performance was fulfilled by his supervisors, particularly the FRO. The documentary evidence and the testimonies during the hearing showed that the Applicant was made aware early on and on different occasions of his performance shortcomings and confronted with them. Efforts were also made to clarify the goals to achieve and to provide support to the...

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time UNMIK’s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant’s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant’s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant’s rebuttal and UNMIK’s transmission of the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant’s...

Since a PIP was not put in place prior to the expiry of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment, she could not rely on section 10.5 of ST/AI/2010/5 for the renewal of her contract. The Administration extended the Applicant’s contract several times despite her refusal to accept the offers of contract extension. These extensions were deemed contrary to a strict application of the requirements of section 4.4 of ST/AI 2013/1 and inconsistent with administrative regularity. However, MONUSCO continued to extend the Applicant’s contract in the hope of persuading her to cooperate with the PIP. It was...

The Applicant did not show that the findings of the Rebuttal Panel together with her final performance appraisal resulted in an administrative decision to her detriment. Although the delay in finalizing the Rebuttal Panel Report was far in excess of the period contemplated under ST/AI/2010/5, the delay did not constitute an error of procedure in light of the reasons advanced by the Respondent. In accordance with section 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5, it was mandatory for the Administration to place the report of the Rebuttal Panel on the Applicant’s official status file and that there was no exercise...

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of “supervisor “ as per the UNON Security and Safety Service (UNON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the UNON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide “security...

The Respondent complied with the audi alterem partem principle, which ensures that a party adversely affected by an administrative decision has the right to know, the opportunity to comment on, and the ability to answer the case against him or her. The Applicant was well aware of the complaints that were lodged against him, was confronted with each claim and responded thereto, was repeatedly warned about his unprofessional behaviour and performance issues yet failed to heed to these warnings. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract due to poor performance was lawful. The Applicant’s...

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of “partially meets performance expectations” and the Applicant’s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of “partially meets performance expectations” became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel’s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant’s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member’s terms of employment...

An inordinate delay in the rebuttal process of an appraisal may be a receivable ground for contesting an administrative decision, but is not an administrative decision, unless the Applicant demonstrates that it had, by itself, a direct and negative impact on a staff member’s conditions of service. Thus, the Applicant needed to show that the delay in conducting the rebuttal process on her rating “partially meets performance expectations”, by itself, had a direct and negative impact on her conditions of service. In this regard, the Applicant claimed that this delay negatively affected her...

The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate”. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would...