�山����

UNAT upheld the UNDT’s conclusion that the Administration’s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz’s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. UNAT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant’s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years “partially meets expectations”. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.

Scope of judicial review The Applicant only challenged the dismissal of his complaint against his FRO and SRO by way of management evaluation. Recalling the general requirement of staff rule 11.2(a), the Tribunal will limit its scope of judicial review to the decision not to investigate the Applicant’s complaint against his FRO and SRO. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals against the MEU’s responses to the Applicant’s request for management evaluation. Therefore, it will not adjudicate the Applicant’s arguments against the MEU’s responses to his request for management...

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...