�山����

It is within the discretion of the Applicant’s SRO to make comments on her performance. “[M]aking comments in an ePAS about the need for a staff member to improve performance in certain core values and competencies is an important tool for the managers to carry out their functions in the interest of the Organization and, hence, their willingness to do so need to be supported and boosted”. It represents a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees.

The comments in question do not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal. They are constructive...

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant’s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. UNAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. UNAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid’s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The Applicant’s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.

The judge must raise on his/her own motion the issue of receivability of an application and in particular verify whether the requirements of former staff rule 111.2 (a) have been complied with since the request for review of an administrative decision is a mandatory prerequisite for filing an appeal before the �山����Dispute Tribunal. The absence of the request for review leads to the irreceivability of the application (see judgments UNDT/2010/158, Osman; UNDT/2009/070, Planas; UNDT/2009/054, Nwuke; UNDT/2009/035, Caldarone). The Tribunal’s competence is limited, pursuant to art. 2.1 (a) of the...

It is not the function of the Tribunal to review the prior JAB report, but to consider whether the respondent acted properly and with due regard to the applicant’s due process rights in deciding to appoint the applicant at the G-3 level. It is incumbent upon any party making serious allegations to produce supporting evidence. It was for the applicant, as a freely contracting person, to decide whether or not to accept the appointment and she did so on the basis of the clear oral and written conditions governing her appointment.Outcome: Application dismissed in its entirety.

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate “rebuttal” procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...