Home

The Respondent submits that the Quality Assurance Specialist conducts the quality assurance work while the Applicant conducts the quality control work, and these two functions are distinct and complementary. (...) However, the materials before the Tribunal also show that the Applicant continued to conduct her functions relating to testing after the creation of the Quality Assurance Specialist post and yet the Respondent calls her functions as ‘quality control’ and her colleague’s functions as ‘quality control’ while the Applicant calls her responsibilities ‘quality assurance’. (...) The Applicant also submits that she was de facto demoted as her functions were limited to ‘quality control’, as opposed to ‘quality assurance’.

A.F., Environmental Reporting Tool Project Manager (copied) my name to appear as Project Quality Assurance on the (PID). During Quality Assurance initiation process (when Anne and I reviewed the document), I have identified the project resource list without designated Project Quality Assurance. (...) Quality assurance relates to “how” a project is performed. (...) Quality control, the role of the Change, Release and Testing Specialist, relates to the quality of the product developed.

CH further told the Applicant that this position was to back up the Applicant in her absence and the Applicant was required to train the new Quality Assurance Specialist on quality assurance specialties so that the new Quality Assurance Specialist could have the Applicant’s skill set. (...) JW, the Assistant Administrator] to have [the Quality Assurance Specialist] position at a P5/P4 level. (...) Specifically, she questioned why there was a second quality assurance role when there is one project quality assurance role under Prince II standard, the role which she performed. 29.

May 2016 vacancy announcement: “Certification in Aviation Quality Audit as Aviation Safety Inspector for Airworthiness and Operations is required”; and c. September 2016 vacancy announcement: “Certification in Aviation Quality Audit as Aviation Safety Inspector for Airworthiness and Operations, or equivalent, is desirable”. 23. (...) Therefore, the Tribunal notes that, contrary to the Applicant’s claim, the Applicant’s experience in aviation quality assurance was taken into account. Case No.

On 17 August 2017, the Respondent filed a “Motion for Expedited Review” stating that in the interests of justice and to avoid irreparable harm to the Organization and to the incumbent of the Quality Assurance Specialist post, a non-party to the proceedings, the Dispute Tribunal proceed with an expedited review of the case. (...) The Applicant states that the documentation “concerns actions taken with respect to past and on-going projects and quality assurance issues raised in recent official documentation”. (...) Applicant’s Counsel submitted that his client, continues to do tasks related to quality assurance which are not fully recognized in the project and other documents, including her performance appraisals.

Sarwar that he received no negative feedback about the quality of this task. However, evidence presented by the supervisors indicated that Mr. (...) Sarwar on the task, the rebuttal panel was reluctant to make a definitive assessment on the quality of this task. 27. The third goal of the workplan involved Mr. (...) Sarwar “did not deliver the required draft that was sufficiently researched in a timely manner” and that the quality of work was poor. The rebuttal panel rejected allegations that Mr.

In an e-mail dated 11 July 2018, the Director denied the Appellant’s request (the “contested decision”) and reminded the Appellant that the Deputy Directors of the Investigations Division, who all report to the Director, play a crucial role in ensuring the quality of the work-product of the Investigations Division. He pointed out that the Deputy Director, was responsible for ensuring “quality outputs in terms of investigations and the associated reporting” and that he would not remove the latter from his responsibility to review the Appellant’s work because that “would provoke anarchy, threaten the quality of [their] work and undermine the employer-employee relationship”. (...) The Director during his testimony reiterated that changing reporting lines to accommodate disgruntled staff members would provoke “anarchy” and would be disruptive THE UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL Judgment No. 2020-UNAT-1030 Page 10 of 12 for the workflow and the quality output of OIOS. These are valid and relevant considerations.

He pointed out that the Deputy Director, ID, OIOS, was responsible for ensuring “quality outputs in terms of investigations and the associated reporting” and that he would not remove the later from his responsibility to review the Applicant’s work because that “would provoke anarchy, threaten the quality of [their] work and undermine the employer-employee relationship”. (...) It is not in the interest of the Organization to remove from the workflow the element of quality control implemented as a review by the Deputy Director, ID, OIOS. (...) It is clear that the Deputy Director, ID, OIOS, has an important role in ensuring “quality in terms of investigations and the associated reporting” in the OIOS Vienna Office.

No problem had been discovered as the air quality was found to be within the parameters of all local building codes. (...) For example, indoor air quality testing has been performed by a specialist contractor. The air quality testing, including the tests conducted on 17 January 2013, confirm that the air quality meets acceptable standards.

His hierarchy has taken advantage of the staff member’s absences motivated by his mother’s decease to prevent him from responding to the allegation on the quality of his performance. The decision not to renew his contract was not taken following a regular procedure but it is motivated by his request for 5-day leave. (...) By e-mail dated 11 August 2009, the Respondent endorses the observations of Management Evaluation Unite (MEU) of 10 August 2009 and considers that the Applicant’s application has become moot since the Administration will follow MEU’s observations, which are as follows: the Applicant received, since March 2008, several observations by his supervisors regarding the quality of his work. On 26 August 2008 he expressed his will to be subject to a regular E-PAS procedure, including the formal rebuttal process, and observed that on 12 August 2008 no work plan had been finalized with his supervisor for 2008/2009. (...) MEU considers that the conditions to grant the suspension of action are met, as (1) there is urgency, (2) the damage caused should the decision be implemented would be irreparable and (3) the procedure of performance evaluation of the Applicant was not correctly followed, whereas the non-renewal of his contract is taken on the grounds of poor quality of his work. MEU recommends that the rebuttal procedure for the Applicant’s 2008/2009 E-PAS be completed, while waiting for the outcome of the management evaluation. 7.