Â鶹´«Ã½

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The UNAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr. Fagasinski was the best candidate when he applied for the P-4 position that he encumbered. Nor was the performance evaluation a procedure meant to reevaluate whether the staff member had the minimum requisite competencies and experience at the time of his candidacy and selection. The subject of the performance evaluation was to assess Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance during the tenure of his contract.

The UNAT found that the performance evaluation exercise must be undertaken objectively and fairly, based on relevant and verifiable factors. Because Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s First Reporting Officer made reference to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s application for the position during the recruitment process, the performance evaluation included irrelevant considerations. The UNAT found that the whole evaluation process was tainted by improper motive.

The UNAT noted that the UNDT should have undertaken an inquisitorial exercise, according to its Statute and Rules of Procedure, to determine whether Mr. Fagasinski reasonably held a legitimate expectation of the renewal of his contract.

The UNAT accordingly remanded the case to the UNDT for a fact-finding exercise and a fresh determination on the question of non-renewal and of appropriate remedies, if any.