51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that UNRWA’s decision not to renew the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. UNAT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant’s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut the presumption that the non-renewal decision was lawful and to shift the burden of proof to the Administration. UNAT held that the non-renewal decision was taken without bias and that the Appellant had knowledge of his shortcomings and ample opportunity to comment and to improve his performance. UNAT held that the Appellant’s submission that the assessment of his performance was unfair as he had not yet been deployed to the field and thus was deprived of the opportunity to carry out his duties was without merit, noting that UNRWA has a broad discretionary power regarding deployment of staff members in the field. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that UNRWA appropriately decided to close the investigation into the Appellant’s complaint of harassment and abuse of power. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err by finding that the repeated suggestions to the Appellant to resign in lieu of termination did not amount to harassment or abuse of power in the circumstances because the advantages and disadvantages of resignation versus termination were openly negotiated and discussed. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly stated that all other alleged acts of misconduct did not constitute harassment or abuse of power or were not raised in the complaint. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.