Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent’s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant’s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant’s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his supervisors.

Extraneous motives: Although the Office of Audit and Investigations (OAI) did not find that there was harassment, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was operating in an environment that was not conducive to a good working relationship. The Tribunal found that the hostile environment the Applicant was working in was revealed by the facts contained in the OAI Investigation Report and therefore held that the Contested Decision was tainted by extraneous motives.

Separation during an investigation: The Tribunal stated that when a staff member files a complaint against a manager who is the person who plays an active role in his/her performance evaluation, common sense and reason require that the Administration stall any final decision in the case of that staff member. The Tribunal therefore held that by rushing to judgment on the decision to separate the Applicant before being in the presence of the OAI findings, the Respondent flouted the basic fundamental rights of the Applicant and abused his discretionary authority.

The Tribunal awarded the Applicant with the equivalent of one year’s net base salary at the level he was entitled to before he was separated from service.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal concluded that Messrs. Ndikumana and Babille openly, consciously and deliberately flouted the basic rules of the Organization in regard to: (a) the evaluation of the performance of a staff member; (b) the prohibition against creating a hostile work environment; and (c) abuse of authority. In light of this, the Tribunal referred both senior managers to the Executive Director of UNICEF, in accordance with art. 10.8 of its Statute, for action to enforce accountability.