Â鶹´«Ã½

Performance evaluation: The Respondent followed the UNFPA Personnel Policy guidelines for the rebuttal process by having a review of the Applicant’s appraisal by the Management Review Group (MRG) which conducted at least two reviews. However, since the second review was completed with insufficient time for the Applicant to submit a written statement of agreement to the Head of Office, wait for a response and then submit a written rebuttal, if necessary, the Respondent breached UNFPA policy requirements and the right to due process. The Applicant had a mandated right as a dissatisfied staff member to receive a fair and impartial consideration of adverse material against him but the opportunity was not accorded to him. Compensation: The Applicant would have had 30 days to submit a rebuttal of the performance appraisal and within three months, the rebuttal panel would have had to complete its review had the proper procedures been followed. Therefore, the Respondent had no lawful basis not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term contract for reasons of performance until that four month process was completed. Outcome: The Tribunal decided: there was no act of discrimination by not renewing the Applicant’s contract; all other claims by the Applicant were rejected; and the Respondent is to pay the Applicant three month’s net base salary.