¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2010/136

UNDT/2010/136, Onana

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Administration’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment beyond September 30 2009 was not informed by improper motive, arbitrariness or other extraneous factors. The Applicant, in merely settling into his reassignment to clerical duties in JRAU, not only deluded himself as to the security of his employment with the ICTR but was utterly unreasonable and careless regarding his own career prospects and must bear the blame for the fall-outs of his reassignment. The ICTR Administration made sufficient effort in the spirit of the Performance Appraisal System to improve the Applicant’s skills and to remedy his performance short-comings as a Court Reporter in spite of his own apparent resistance, casualness and criticisms of the implementation of the real time system by his unit. The Applicant has not proved his assertion that the staff retention guidelines were not followed in arriving at the decision to abolish his post in the Court Reporting unit. The Applicant’s due process rights were not violated in the decision not to retain him in light of the closing strategy of the ICTR.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant joined the ICTR in April 1999 as a French court reporter. He worked in that capacity until May 2007 when the Chief of section recommended that his contract should not be renewed. After some discussions within the section, the Applicant was moved to the Judicial Records and Archives Unit (JRAU) in August 2007. He however continued to encumber his post with the French Court Reporters Unit even though he now performed functions in the JRAU. In June 2009, he was given notice that his contract would not be renewed following the abolition of some posts as part of the completion strategy of the ICTR. The Applicant is appealing the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond September 30 2009.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Onana
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type