Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.
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 Applicant did not show that the findings of the Rebuttal Panel together with her final performance appraisal resulted in an administrative decision to her detriment. Although the delay in finalizing the Rebuttal Panel Report was far in excess of the period contemplated under ST/AI/2010/5, the delay did not constitute an error of procedure in light of the reasons advanced by the Respondent. In accordance with section 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5, it was mandatory for the Administration to place the report of the Rebuttal Panel on the Applicant’s official status file and that there was no exercise...
The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of “partially meets performance expectations” and the Applicant’s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of “partially meets performance expectations” became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel’s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...
If the comments in a satisfactory performance evaluation do, in fact, detract from the overall rating, they oppositely must constitute a final, and therefore also appealable, decision. If a staff member were not to be granted access to judicial review by this Tribunal of whether disparaging comments detracted from the provided ratings of “successfully meets performance expectations”, such comments would be entirely shielded from any scrutiny whatsoever and their legality would never be capable of any review at all. Accordingly, a central purpose of ST/AI/2010/5 namely, ensuring accountability...
Whether the Applicant’s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO… Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant’s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to “proactively assist” the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...
The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel was properly constituted. The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel’s review of the evidence complied with the applicable norms. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s medical condition was not an excuse for his reported poor performance. The Tribunal found that because the Applicant’s report of abuse of authority against his supervisor was only filed after the performance appraisal was completed, it had no bearing on the appraisal.
