2015-UNAT-546, Staedtler
UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision that stemmed from the Appellant’s performance appraisal and that the comments of his Second Reporting Officer (SRO) reflected no more than a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees, and did not of itself constitute an independent, administrative decision capable of being appealed. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant’s challenge which related to the comments of his SRO in his 2011-12 performance appraisal was not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it considered that the Appellant’s challenge to the failure of the Administration to allow him to comment on his mid-point review in relation to his 2012-2013 performance appraisal cycle was moot, since he was given the opportunity previously omitted and did not take advantage of it. UNAT upheld the decision of UNDT, namely that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract in a timely manner and therefore his appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the ground of appeal challenging the rejection by the Ethics Office of the Appellant’s request for protection against retaliation also failed as it had no merit. UNAT held that the Appellant’s request for a referral for accountability of certain persons necessarily failed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the following: the finding of the Management Evaluation Unit that his challenge to comments entered in his performance appraisal was time-barred; the denial of his right to comment on his mid-point review for his performance appraisal; the failure by the Ethics Office to find that he had been subjected to retaliation; and UN-Habitat’s decision not to renew his appointment. UNDT dismissed his application.
UNAT will not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of the UNDT in the management of cases. UNDT has a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto. A positive performance rating does not constitute an administrative decision able, by itself, to have a direct and negative impact on a staff member’s rights.