AV

UNDT/2011/084, Simmons

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The e-PAS report for 2007-2008. The Applicant’s behaviour was not appropriate or cooperative, placing her first reporting officer in a difficult position. Nevertheless, under ST/AI/2002/3, it is the duty of the first reporting officer, as well as the head of department and managers with supervisory authority, to make sure that the staff member’s individual work plan is completed on time, and the Organization remains ultimately responsible for the implementation of the e-PAS system. The e-PAS report for 2008-2009. A one-year delay in signing-off on an e-PAS report is clearly improper under sec. 9 of ST/AI/2002/3, which explicitly stipulates that the appraisal should be made “[a]t the end of the performance year”. Selection processes. For a candidate to be successful in a selection exercise regulated by ST/AI/2006/3, s/he had to pass several hurdles prescribed in secs. 7.4 and 7.5 of ST/AI/2006/3. For the first process, the Applicant failed to do so, since the interview panel found that she did not possess the necessary competencies for the post. Concerning the second process exercise, the Applicant applied too late in time and after the process had actually been completed. Outcome: Applicant awarded USD500 for the delay in her e-PAS report for 2007-2008, the sum of USD3,000 for the delay in her e-PAS report for 2008-2009.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The case concerns: (1) whether the Respondent violated the Applicant’s employment contract when preparing and/or completing her e-PAS reports for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009; and (2) whether the Respondent’s handling of the selection processes for two posts for which the Applicant was not selected, for various reasons, constituted a breach of her employment contract.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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
Simmons
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type