¹ú²úAV

Restructuring process: The Tribunal concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in either the creation of Oversight and Support Division (OSD) or the subsequent restructuring/realignment process. Both were undertaken in a fully transparent manner, with full consultation of all staff members including the Applicant. Sufficiency of reasons: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given reasons for the decision on more than one occasion including those conveyed to her by her staff representative following a meeting with UNDP Senior Management. These reasons were based on the...

UNDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. UNDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant’s contract should not be renewed. UNDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member’s contract. UNDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party’s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...

The Tribunal found that after a first positive evaluation in 2012, the Applicant’s first reporting officer had put the Applicant on notice in respect of what she perceived as shortcomings in the Applicant’s performance, at the beginning of the performance cycle 2013/14. It found, however, that the Rebuttal process was marked by serious procedural flaws and ruled that the final decision on the rebuttal, confirming the Applicant’s PAS rating for the cycle 2013, was illegal and could not stand. Therefore, and since the decision not to extend the Applicant’s appointment beyond 30 June 2014 was...

The Dispute Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and rejected the application. Application of ST/AI/2010/5 on Performance Management and Development System: This administrative instruction does not apply to UNFPA, which is a separately administered fund, as it has not explicitly accepted its applicability, as per ST/SGB/2004/9 on Procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances. Obligation to provide an opportunity to improve performance prior to non-renewal: Absent any specific provision in the applicable rules, the Organization has no legal obligation to take any...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation within 60 days of receiving notification of the contested decision, as required by the Staff Rules. The Respondent produced minutes of four meetings held in June 2014, submitting that in the three of the four meetings, the Applicant was informed that her fixed-term appointment would expire and would not be renewed. The Applicant contested the accuracy of the minutes. A hearing on receivability was held at which each of the participants in the June 2014...

Scope of judicial review concerning post abolition: it is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own views to that of the Secretary-General on how to organize work and meet operational needs. The Tribunal may only examine and set aside decisions on very limited grounds, where there has been a finding of a breach of the administrative law considerations surrounding a decision.Improper motive: an Applicant has the burden of proof when seeking to demonstrate any improper motive.Comparative Review Policy for Locally Recruited Staff Members – paragraph 4: in the context of an exercise to abolish a...

The UNDT found that the first case (UNDT/NY/2015/038) was not receivable due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the relevant time limit for the filing of her request for management evaluation. The UNDT found that the second case (UNDT/NY/2015/038) was also not receivable as the Applicant’s argument that her earlier evaluation request (to which she received no reply) should be considered as the applicable management evaluation request would have resulted in her application being time-barred by several months.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was not renewed because contrary to its claims, the UNMIL Administration did not follow proper procedures in determining whether he should be reassigned to the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant was not given full and fair consideration for the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law and that the guidance provided in the Secretary-General’s report and the counsel of the General Assembly were ignored. Due process – No comparative review or any review...

The Tribunal concluded that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment (FTA) was unlawful because he was erroneously subjected to a recruitment and selection process after he had been successfully transitioned from UNMIS to UNMISS as the sole candidate for the post of State Coordinator in Aweil. The Applicant was awarded compensation of one year’s net base salary. Lateral transfer: The Tribunal noted the absence of important terms in the 19 December 2010 letter regarding the length of the assignment and reabsorption and concluded that the Applicant had, in fact, been laterally...

Non-renewal: A non-renewal decision can be based on a mere reduction of work, based on a workload prognosis—made at the time of the decision. This can lead to a situation where a regular budget post remains vacant without actually being abolished. There is no legal obligation for the Administration to renew a staff member’s FTA based solely on the fact that the respective post is funded. On the contrary, it may be in the best interest of the Organization to save money instead of using available resources at all cost. In assessing future workload, the Administration necessarily has to make some...