2021-UNAT-1142, Edward E. Hammond
Mr. Hammond’s appeal is defective, as it does not address the issue of receivability or the UNDT’s finding that his application contesting his 2016-2017 performance appraisal was not receivable. Mr. Hammond’s application was not receivable as the reclassification decision was taken by the General Assembly. It is not erroneous to call the reclassification of Mr. Hammond’s P-4 post to an FS-6 post a “conversion” or an “abolishment” because, in effect, this classification resulted in Mr. Hammond’s P-4 being abolished and replaced by, or converted into, an FS-6 post.
UNDT/2020/096, in which UNDT dismissed Mr. Hammond’s application regarding his 2016-2017 performance appraisal and the decision to reclassify his post.
It is mandatory that a copy of the Rebuttal Panel Report be placed with the original performance appraisal in a staff member’s official status file so that the two documents might be read in conjunction with each other. A comment in a satisfactory appraisal is not a final administrative decision if it does not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal and has no direct legal consequences for the staff member. Only decisions of the Secretary-General are administrative decisions under Articles 2(1)(a) and 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, but not decisions of the General Assembly, which is the “lawmaker” of the United Nations and whose decisions are of a legal or regulatory character. The Staff member has to challenge the administrative decision that follows from the implementation of, or is based on, the (legal or regulatory) decision of the General Assembly. The response from MEU is not an appealable administrative decision; the staff member must challenge the original and underlying administrative decision.