�山����

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent’s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires “maximum dispatch” in the completion of the rebuttal process.

Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.

Receivability/administrative decision: It would be inconsistent with its standard of review to allow the Tribunal to interfere with the review of a performance appraisal before the rebuttal process has been finalised.

Outcome: The Tribunal awarded the Applicant USD25,000 for the breach of his rights and the resultant harm. The Applicant also contested the decision to remove some of his functions from him and modify his reporting arrangements, to initiate and carry out a fact-finding management review in relation to his performance, and to place him on special leave with full pay (“SLWFP”). The UNDT made the following findings. The Respondent failed to meet its obligations for assessing and managing the performance of the Applicant. The Respondent did not fully and fairly raise the performance issues at the...

When the Tribunal is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under articles 2.1(c) and 8.2 of its Statute, the Tribunal’s competence is limited to verifying whether the agreement reached through mediation has been implemented.Outcome:

Administrative decisions: What an administrative decision is or is not depends on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision has been made and the consequences of the decision, which dispels any notion that administrative decisions can be placed in any kind of legal strait jacket. Performance evaluation: Notwithstanding the bar to rebutting successful performance ratings in section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5, when a contested administrative decision is alleged to be in violation of the legal issuances of the Organization, it is actionable before the Tribunal in so far...

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant’s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent’s case. UNON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant’s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant’s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant’s contract. The Applicant’s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...

Legitimate expectation: While a legitimate expectation can be created by an express promise on the part of the Organization, the Tribunal held that a promise can also be implied from the particular circumstances of a case or from what is held out to an individual. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal. Performance appraisal: When a staff member is given a rating indicating that he/she meets most expectations but that there is room for improvement, there is an implicit undertaking by the Administration that the staff member will be allowed to...

Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel’s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

Due process: The Tribunal held that there were two serious procedural flaws that violated the Applicant’s due process rights: (i) the UNICEF Handbook unduly restricted the grounds on which the Applicant could rebut her performance appraisal in a way not envisaged by ST/AI/2002/3; and (ii) By misinforming the Applicant and effectively causing her to abandon the other legitimate grounds of rebuttal she had intended to rely on, the Director of Human Resources flawed the whole rebuttal process. Rebuttal process: The Tribunal held that the rebuttal process was also flawed because the Rebuttal Panel...