Home

The SRO recommended that a performance improvement plan be put in place in order to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to remedy the shortcomings. 4. (...) The decision to impose on him a performance improvement plan is unlawful, arbitrary and in contravention of the provision of ST/AI/2010/5; b. (...) The Application is not receivable because the decision to institute the performance improvement plan was implemented effective 1 October 2016.

He also informed her that, if no improvement was evidenced by the end of that period, her contract might not be renewed. 14. (...) She was forced to sign the work improvement plan because she was told that, if she did not, her contract would not be extended. (...) Hence, on 19 May 2008 the Chief, Mission Support, sent the applicant a memorandum informing her that a work improvement plan, the purpose of which would be to assess the improvement in her performance, would be implemented until 31 August 2008 and warning her that, if no improvement was evidenced by the end of that period, her contract might not be renewed.

A written performance improvement plan was signed by the Applicant and her first and second reporting officers on 6 January 2012. 5. (...) UNDT/2012/117 Page 3 of 7 8. The performance improvement plan was reviewed on 20 June 2012. On this occasion, the Applicant’s first reporting officer observed that she had improved in the competency of planning and organizing but that she had not been able to improve the communication competency. 9. (...) In addition, the end-of-cycle appraisal “should have not given immediate reason to enforce the performance improvement plan” as she had met two of the three goals identified in the performance improvement plan and she had been assessed as fully competent in the core values.

She reminded him that he needed to improve his performance to meet expectations for the post of TDSE Advisor. (...) On 4 October 2015, another meeting took place between the Applicant and the H/TDSE to discuss a performance improvement plan. As a result, an informal performance improvement plan was established for the Applicant for the period October to mid-December 2015. ... (...) Al-Ashi’s assessment during the second improvement plan and concluded that “there was a constant communication between the Applicant and the H/TDSE”,7 and that the H/TDSE constantly evaluated his work and advised him on the ways to improve his performance.

He advised that, should her performance not improve by the end of that period, her appointment might not be renewed. (...) Kapsou signed the work improvement plan on 4 June 2008. 12. On 17 June 2008, Ms. (...) Kapsou was informed on 19 May 2008 that a work improvement plan would be implemented until 31 August 2008; and that her appointment would not be renewed should her performance not have improved by the end of that period.

At the mid-point review, in January 2006, a performance improvement plan was instituted. 6. By email dated 9 October 2006, the applicant’s first reporting officer reminded him that a performance improvement plan had been instituted because his performance had been rated at the mid-point review in the 2005- 2006 cycle as not meeting expectations. (...) On 20 October 2006, the applicant was sent a performance improvement plan in connection with his e-PAS for the 2006-2007 cycle. 8. (...) He therefore received the rating “Partially meets performance expectations” for two consecutive years despite the fact that his supervisors tried, by means of performance improvement plans and regular supervision, to help him improve his work. 41.

… In a document titled “Notes on performance improvement discussions – unofficial session” dated 2 December 2014 and signed by the Applicant and his supervisor, specific areas for improvement were identified for the Applicant (...) … By letter dated 26 April 2015, the Area Education Officer (“AEO”), Irbid Area Office, drew the Applicant’s attention to the importance of improving his work and to the negative consequences if the situation did not improve (...) Indeed, the record shows that he was given many opportunities by UNRWA to improve his performance, to no avail. In this regard, the UNRWA DT found that “[t]he Agency painstakingly made sustained and abundantly documented efforts to improve [his] shortcomings, in [his] own interest and in the students’ interest”.7 18.

Whilst containing some criticisms, it also stated that there was a “noteworthy improvement from the past”, “significant improvement in filing of Office Chrono programme”, and that “[a]ll logistic support was very well done”. 21. (...) UNDT/2013/051 Page 10 of 26 Performance improvement plan for January to June 2010 30. A performance improvement plan was prepared and agreed with the Applicant following a meeting in late January 2010. (...) The Applicant further stated that her supervisors failed to provide her with monthly performance improvement evaluations, as was required by the performance improvement plan.

The identified areas for improvement were to be developed in [Mr. Said’s] “second year at UNICEF.” (...) Said a performance rating of “2”, which allows “room for improvement”, it implicitly undertook to allow him the opportunity to continue in his employment so he could improve over the next year, with his supervisors’ assistance. (...) Additionally, “[t]he importance of improving the[…] strategic and analytical competencies was discussed with [Mr.

The FRO advised the Applicant that his performance had not improved and raised concerns as to his non-authorised absences from work. 28. (...) Instead, it offered him “a further opportunity to deliver on the expected results as detailed in the first performance improvement plan.” Having decided not to separate the Applicant for performance reasons, the Administration should be estopped from arguing that under sec. 10.3 of ST/AI/2010/5, failure to improve after the first PIP justified the non-renewal decision; d. (...) The use of the word “may” in sec. 10.1 indicates that it is the manager’s discretion to choose, from a pool of different possible measures, the one/ones he considers/consider the best suited to help the staff member improving his/her performance. This provision does not contemplate a pre-established hierarchy of measures to improve staff members’ performance.