����AV

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Hampstead had not established that the UNDT made any errors under Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.   

The UNDT correctly took note of the documented performance shortcomings over three performance cycles as well as the fact that Mr. Hampstead’s performance did not improve despite the remedial measures put in place, such as two PIPs, the adjustment of output timelines, and continuous feedback, performance discussions and training that Mr. Hampstead had received over the years. The UNDT also correctly held that the Administration had followed...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar’s performance evaluation an “administrative decision” with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the UNDT did not err in finding her application receivable.  

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar’s performance as “successfully meets performance expectations”, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

The UNAT held that the UNDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance.  The UNAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard.  The UNAT observed that he had received “partially meets performance expectations” for two performance cycles, and “does not meet expectations” for the most recent performance cycle.  He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

In determining the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a) Whether the Applicant's performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant’s records for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 performance cycles.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and noted that during the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was advised on multiple occasions to improve his work ethic and productivity. At the end of the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was assessed as...

The record demonstrated that the Applicant refused to complete her supervisees’ performance evaluation and delayed the contract extension process. The Applicant refused to perform key managerial functions.

While it may be true that she was not given an opportunity to explain her actions, the remedies under section 10.1 ST/AI/2010/5 are only aimed at rectifying performance short comings and are not punitive. It was therefore not necessary to conduct some form of investigation in which a staff member would be required to explain her actions. 

While the Applicant had a duty and a right to...

The UNAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator.  The UNAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans.  The UNAT found that the Organization’s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The UNAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi’s allegations that his...

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant’s performance was rated as either “partially meets performance expectations” or “does not meet performance expectations” since 2015, except for one cycle in which she “fully met” expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

The Notice and its placement in the Applicant’s personnel file   Noting that the decision at issue is a written reprimand imposed to address a staff member’s unsatisfactory conduct following an investigation of an altercation, the Tribunal considers that the decision at issue constitutes an administrative measure under sec. 2.1(d) of ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The fact that a reprimand is not a disciplinary measure “does not mean that a reprimand does not have legal consequences, which are to the detriment of its addressee, especially...

The scope of judicial review in termination cases due to unsatisfactory service is limited to reviewing whether the appointment was lawfully terminated based on the applicable rules. It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct a review of the performance evaluation process or to determine a different performance rating. In this case, the Applicant was notified that based on the 2020-2021 overall rating of “does not meet performance expectations” and the 2019-2020 “partially meets performance expectations”, the Administration decided to terminate his continuing appointment. Having examined...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s explanation as to why the Applicant’s post was the one chosen for abolition is well substantiated. There was a genuine large scale restructuring due to severe budget cuts, which resulted in other staff members being separated from service, including the Applicant, and there was a legitimate explanation for the recruitments and vacancies that were not cancelled. The presumption of regularity was satisfied. Since the Applicant cannot convincingly show why his post should not have been abolished even though the posts of dozens of other staff members...