51ÁÔÆæ

The events leading up to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service do not amount to a termination. The Applicant was in fact wrongly placed on Special Leave With Full Pay from 21 May 2004 to 31 December 2004. UNDP guidelines on Results and Competency Assessment do not confer any power on the Resident Representative to place a staff member on special leave with full pay for unsatisfactory performance as was done by the RR in this case. Not only was the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP illegal, it was a disguised disciplinary measure designed to humiliate and embarrass the Applicant to the...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 UNHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to a shifting of his candidature from one group to another, based on criteria which were not stipulated in the rules and at a stage in the course of the process of examination, which was in breach...

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...

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...