����AV

The Tribunal found that the decision to abolish the post of Senior Child Protection Officer in Darfur, Sudan is not subject to judicial review. That aspect of the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that the Administration did not act unlawfully by not renewing the Applicant’s contract because the contract itself was clear that it was expiring on 31 December 2018. Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal.

The Applicant’s performance appraisal was fair and supported by the facts in evidence. The Administration was justified in deciding not to extend the Applicant’s temporary appointment for poor performance. There was no justification to extend the Applicant’s appointment beyond the maximum 364 days. The Applicant filed a complaint of harassment after she had received the request for management evaluation. She was therefore not able to show a link between her complaint and the decision not to renew her appointment given that the decision occurred months before the filing of the complaint. There...

The Tribunal found the application receivable because: 1)Although the Applicants, who were self-represented, referred to and addressed some of the findings in the management evaluation response at section VII of their application, the applications were evidently not directed at the Management Evaluation Unit response but rather at the decision not to renew their appointments beyond 30 June 2019. 2)The 5 April 2019 notice was not unambiguous and the non-extension decision may have been interpreted as conditioned upon the future General Assembly resolution on the budget. The communication dated...

The legal issue for determination in the present case is whether UNOPS was under an obligation to extend a fixed-term appointment for the sole purpose of allowing a staff member to utilize his or her sick leave entitlement. The answer is negative, as the Tribunal found that there was no evidence in the case file to conclude that the legal framework of UNOPS included such obligation. Neither Staff rule 6.2(a) nor UNOPS Operational Directive OD.PCG.2017.01 on Human Resources, Ethics and Culture (in effect as of 15 August 2017) contain any obligation for the Administration to extend a staff...

The Applicant’s appointment was not renewed due to her own requests to leave prior to the end of her four-year rotation in that position. The record shows that the Applicant was well aware of the reasons for the non-renewal of her position and would have understood the contents of the notification letter related directly to her requests to Director and Deputy Director to leave her position. The record clearly demonstrates that the Applicant’s post was advertised due to her request to leave UNDP Guyana prior to the end of her four-year rotation. The Applicant cites no impropriety in the...

The Tribunal understands that in light of HR’s emails, the Applicant could have reasonably understood by mistake that his contract would be further extended pending proceedings in his cases before the Dispute Tribunal. As the Applicant did not request management evaluation within that deadline and waited until 22 June 2019, his application is not receivable.

The evidence showed that the Applicant’s post was abolished and his fixed-term appointment was not extended for this reason. Therefore, the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was lawful. The Applicant has adduced insufficient evidence that he was promised a renewal. The Applicant should have been aware that his fixed-term appointment expired automatically at the end of its term. The Administration properly notified the Applicant of the non-renewal of his appointment. While the notification of the decision not to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment did not state...

The decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment beyond 15 January 2020 was superseded by subsequent decisions that resulted in the Applicant’s appointment being renewed to June 2020. Other than alleging that bias and an abuse of authority led to the superseded decision, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal how his rights remained adversely affected by the contested decision.

The Administration informed the Applicant that “it will issue an administrative reprimand”. The request for management evaluation was made within 60 days of that communication and the application is therefore receivable even if the actual reprimand was issued months later. The Administration decided that the Applicant did not exercise her discretion and regulated her conduct “with the interests of the United Nations only in view” and the expression of her personal views. While there is no specific rule requiring the Applicant to consult with UNICEF before expressing her personal views, that...

The Applicant was not a staff member at the time of the contested decision, and her former employment was with a different entity than that concerned by the administrative decision under review in this case. No nexus existed between the Applicant’s former employment with the Organization and the administrative decision under review, and the Applicant has therefore no standing to challenge this decision. The cancellation of a selection process is not a challengeable administrative decision. In this case, the canceled job opening was eventually re-advertised and the Applicant eventually selected...