UNDT/2023/077, HOSSAIN
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not discharged the burden of proving improper motives or bias against the Respondent.
Of all the eight alleged acts/omissions on which the Applicant based the complaint that his "partially satisfactory" rating was motivated by bias and ill-motive were speculative and the impugned assessment was not tainted by bias or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the fact that the Talent Management Review Group did not afford the Applicant an opportunity to present his case could not, ground a finding of bias and improper motive.
On 26 February 2019, the Applicant filed an application challenging the rating of his 2016 Performance Management and Development (“PMD”) assessment.
The determination of whether a staff member was denied due process or procedural fairness, in the final analysis, must rest upon the nature of any procedural irregularity and its impact.
The Tribunal may determine that the assessment of a performance was unfair, illegal, or irrational, provided that the Applicant sufficiently proves that the assessment of his performance was tainted by bias, retaliation, or some other form of ill motivation.