51�Թ�

While finding that there had been a procedural flaw in the FOPA evaluation, inasmuch as the Applicant had been denied a rebuttal, the Tribunal considered that there was not causal effect between this flaw and the non-renewal decision, noting that the contested decision refers only to the third and last appraisal, which was made in accordance with the applicable rules. Resolution 59/296 and reappointment of 300 series staff members under 100 series: The said resolution authorises the Secretary-General to reappoint staff members holding an appointment under the 300 series of former Staff Rules...

The events leading up to the Applicant’s separation from service do not amount to a termination. The Applicant was in fact wrongly placed on Special Leave With Full Pay from 21 May 2004 to 31 December 2004. UNDP guidelines on Results and Competency Assessment do not confer any power on the Resident Representative to place a staff member on special leave with full pay for unsatisfactory performance as was done by the RR in this case. Not only was the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP illegal, it was a disguised disciplinary measure designed to humiliate and embarrass the Applicant to the...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal’s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to a shifting of his candidature from one group to another, based on criteria which were not stipulated in the rules and at a stage in the course of the process of examination, which was in breach...

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.

Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.

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.

Outcome: The Tribunal awarded the Applicant USD25,000 for the breach of his rights and the resultant harm. The Applicant also contested the decision to remove some of his functions from him and modify his reporting arrangements, to initiate and carry out a fact-finding management review in relation to his performance, and to place him on special leave with full pay (“SLWFP”). The UNDT made the following findings. The Respondent failed to meet its obligations for assessing and managing the performance of the Applicant. The Respondent did not fully and fairly raise the performance issues at the...

When the Tribunal is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under articles 2.1(c) and 8.2 of its Statute, the Tribunal’s competence is limited to verifying whether the agreement reached through mediation has been implemented.Outcome:

Administrative decisions: What an administrative decision is or is not depends on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision has been made and the consequences of the decision, which dispels any notion that administrative decisions can be placed in any kind of legal strait jacket. Performance evaluation: Notwithstanding the bar to rebutting successful performance ratings in section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5, when a contested administrative decision is alleged to be in violation of the legal issuances of the Organization, it is actionable before the Tribunal in so far...

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...