Â鶹´«Ã½

The issue raised in the application was not submitted for management evaluation. The application is not receivable. Related

The Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment. As the Applicant held a fixed-term appointment which expired, staff rules 9.6(e) and (f) do not apply. Therefore, the Administration had no obligation to make efforts to retain the Applicant. The application is therefore not receivable.

The Applicant timely requested management evaluation of the contested decision and has met the procedural requirements to have this Tribunal adjudicate her case. The application is therefore receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal considered that from provisions in ST/AI/2010/5 and ST/AI/2010/4, derives a general principle to complete performance evaluations before separation applicable also to staff members holding a fixed-term appointment. The Tribunal found that the Organization had to make a balancing exercise of the Applicant’s different performance results and could not simply act as...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not established that there was any bias or impropriety which had any impact on the decision not to renew his appointment. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had not provided any information which would assist in production of relevant information and the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to embark upon a full investigation of the matter and could only rely on what had been made available pursuant to its case management powers. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal The Applicant appears to argue that the Administration created an expectancy of renewal of his contract by referring to statements, allegedly made by various individuals of the Organization. The individuals concerned dispute the facts as presented by the Applicant and he has not adduced any written evidence regarding a firm commitment to renewal. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that “[i]n order for a staff member’s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the record before it, there was no dispute that the decision to abolish the post the Applicant was occupying and, consequently, the decision not to extend his appointment originated from the restructuring approved in the 2016/17 budget for UNISFA by the General Assembly. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to substantiate claims of discrimination against him. As such, the contested decision was taken in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

Therefore, the facts resulting from this investigation were not established to a sufficient standard that would permit the Administration to later rely on them to act against the Applicant once he became a staff member. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Administration acted as a reasonable decision maker in deciding to terminate the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment and finds the contested decision unlawful and decides to rescind it. The contested decision is rescinded. Under art. 10.5(a) of its Statute, the Respondent may elect to pay the Applicant compensation in lieu of the...

As a result of the Applicant's request for management evaluation, the contested decision was rescinded. Therefore, said decision no longer produces legal effects and the application is moot.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that his separation was unfair and that the Administration did not violate any term of the Applicant’s contract of employment. The Applicant challenged the fact that he was separated on ground of retrenchment before the General Assembly had approved the Budget to abolish his post. The record showed that this issue was already adjudicated upon in favour of the Applicant under Order No. 086 (NBI/2019). In accordance with the Tribunal’s earlier final finding on the matter, it...

UNDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant’s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). UNDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.