¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2014/034, Assale

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent’s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant’s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant’s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his supervisors.

Extraneous motives: Although the Office of Audit and Investigations (OAI) did not find that there was harassment, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was operating in an environment that was not conducive to a good working relationship. The Tribunal found that the hostile environment the Applicant was working in was revealed by the facts contained in the OAI Investigation Report and therefore held that the Contested Decision was tainted by extraneous motives.

Separation during an investigation: The Tribunal stated that when a staff member files a complaint against a manager who is the person who plays an active role in his/her performance evaluation, common sense and reason require that the Administration stall any final decision in the case of that staff member. The Tribunal therefore held that by rushing to judgment on the decision to separate the Applicant before being in the presence of the OAI findings, the Respondent flouted the basic fundamental rights of the Applicant and abused his discretionary authority.

The Tribunal awarded the Applicant with the equivalent of one year’s net base salary at the level he was entitled to before he was separated from service.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal concluded that Messrs. Ndikumana and Babille openly, consciously and deliberately flouted the basic rules of the Organization in regard to: (a) the evaluation of the performance of a staff member; (b) the prohibition against creating a hostile work environment; and (c) abuse of authority. In light of this, the Tribunal referred both senior managers to the Executive Director of UNICEF, in accordance with art. 10.8 of its Statute, for action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant is contesting the decision by UNICEF not to renew his fixed term appointment on the basis of poor performance.

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.