�山����

The applicant was entitled to be immediately informed or placed in the same position as he would have been had he been immediately informed. The failure to give timely notice, given the history of the case, gave rise to the legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed. Outcome: Held that the applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal of his contract and that decision not to renew was based on proper grounds and was not affected by irrelevant considerations. Held also that the applicant was entitled to be informed of the decision that he was regarded by the Organization as...

The Tribunal finds that the circumstances appertaining at the time of recruitment of the Applicant created a legal expectancy of renewal. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was arrived at in breach of her rights to due process. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the non-renewal of the contract subject to the duty to mitigate.

Scope of the case. The Applicant’s claims of harassment, sexual harassment and abuse of authority presented to the JAB were not independent claims in and of themselves, but merely constituted support for the Applicant’s contention that her due process rights had been violated in the context of the non-renewal and non-extension. Considering the posture of the case presented to the JAB and on review by the Dispute Tribunal, the Tribunal is without authority to re-examine the investigation into the Applicant’s sexual harassment charges. Exceptional case. With respect to the determination whether...

The Tribunal held that the presence of bad faith in some of the Respondent’s actions concerning the Applicant stood out in bold relief. There was no doubt that the bad blood between the Applicant and her immediate supervisor created a ripple effect and alienated her from the Chief of ICTS. The testimony on why and how the recruitment process for VA 421846 had to be overhauled clearly reflected a blatant manipulation of the selection process set out in ST/AI/2006/3; a subversion and clear breach of United Nations Staff Rules. The Applicant did not make out a case with regard to her allegations...

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that “[s]eparation as a result of … expiration of appointment … shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules”. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish a factual basis for her alleged expectation that her contract would be renewed, that she would be given a regularized position, or that she would be placed on special leave without pay at the expiry of her contract. The UNDT therefore found that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s temporary appointment was not unlawful.

If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply “give” the Applicant another position within UNEP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate...

The UNDT found that the decision was in violation of an express written promise of renewal for three months by the head of her mission.

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees UNDT/2011/156, Gehr UNDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. UNDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees UNDT/2011/156, Gehr UNDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. UNDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...