����AV

UNAT considered whether UNDT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant’s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. UNAT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. UNAT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...

UNAT considered whether UNDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant’s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant’s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. UNAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, UNDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined Mr. Hossain’s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain’s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. UNAT held that the UNDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. UNAT admitted on appeal the...

The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was prima facie unlawful because it appeared to be in breach of the Organization’s Rules and in breach of international legal norms relating to due process. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract would be terminated on 3 September 2009. Notwithstanding that it had allegedly been agreed that the contract would be extended after 3 September 2009, the matter was still urgent because this was not the first time that this particular strategy had been used by the Respondent towards the Applicant. Having...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General acted properly within his broad discretion in deciding to take no action in relation to the Applicant’s appeal against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment, and the appeal was dismissed.

Receivability of moot claims: Even before the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had extended the Applicant’s contract beyond 30 April 2010 and it had informed him that his contract would be extended until the completion of his rebuttal. Accordingly, the application insofar as it concerns the decision to renew the Applicant’s contract until 30 April 2010 was moot as at the date on which it was submitted to the Tribunal and it is therefore not receivable. Discretion of the Secretary-General in the organization of work: The Secretary-General enjoys broad...

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant’s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent’s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires “maximum dispatch” in the completion of the rebuttal process.

Receivability/administrative decision: It would be inconsistent with its standard of review to allow the Tribunal to interfere with the review of a performance appraisal before the rebuttal process has been finalised.

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant’s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent’s case. UNON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant’s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant’s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant’s contract. The Applicant’s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...