�山����

The decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment

The Tribunal found that there were no good reasons to depart from the principle of renewal pending completion of a rebuttal process. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s performance was not fairly evaluated, notably during the third and fourth evaluation cycles. Thus, these performance appraisals could not be relied upon to justify a decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. As a consequence, the Tribunal found that the third reason for not renewing the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment, namely that she only partially met expectations for two consecutive years, was not adequately supported by the evidence and could not stand.

Is the decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment supported by any of the four other allegedly non-performance-related reasons?

The Tribunal found that none of the four additional reasons set out in the letter of 15 May 2013 examined by the Tribunal supported the decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. With the exception of the last one, these reasons were all reflected in the Applicant’s performance appraisals and shall thus be considered as performance-related. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal concluded that both the decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment upon expiry and the decision not to extend her appointment pending the outcome of the rebuttal process were unlawful.

Remedies

In respect of the decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment, the Tribunal ordered the Secretary-General to pay the Applicant compensation equivalent to 21 months’ net base salary, as pecuniary damages. It reasoned that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment based on poor performance and the difficulties to get references from OSLA made her job search particularly difficult. She was pregnant at the time and was the main breadwinner of her family. She was unemployed for a year and was only partly employed in the second year after the termination of her contract. The Tribunal accordingly took the view that she should be compensated for loss of income from her separation on 5 April 2014 until the end of 2016. The Tribunal further ordered compensation equivalent to half the Applicant’s net base salary, plus post adjustment, for eight months and 13 days, as pecuniary damages for the loss of income resulting from her placement on sick leave with half pay from 22 July 2013 to 4 April 2014. The Tribunal also ordered payment of USD40,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damages arising from the significant stress the Applicant experienced as a result of the non-renewal of her contract, which resulted in her having to leave Geneva to return to difficult circumstances in the United States of America (USA) while she was pregnant with twins. She lost her medical insurance and her husband had to leave his employment in Morocco to assist her in the USA. Medical reports corroborated that the Applicant suffered significant psychological harm caused by the non-renewal of her contract. With regard to the decision not to extend the Applicant’s appointment pending the outcome of the rebuttal process, the Tribunal awarded the Applicant compensation equivalent to half her net base salary, plus post adjustment, for seven months and five days, as pecuniary damages. This award was intended to compensate the Applicant for being placed on half-pay from 21 July 2013 until the issuance of the rebuttal report on 27 February 2014. The Tribunal ordered that this amount be set off against the award for pecuniary damages made in relation to the non-renewal of her contract. The Tribunal also ordered payment of USD10,000 for the non-pecuniary harm the Applicant suffered as a direct result of the decision not to extend her appointment pending completion of the rebuttal process. In this regard, the Tribunal found that she had suffered infringement of dignitas as a result of being treated differently from other staff members whose appointments are normally extended pending the completion of a rebuttal process and that this caused additional stress.

Accountability referral: the Tribunal referred the Applicant’s FRO for accountability to the Secretary-General pursuant to art. 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute in respect of the breaches of confidentiality and the directions given to the Applicant in respect of the conduct of her cases, which constituted a failure to meet or maintain the requisite level of professionalism.