�鶹��ý

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving “by clear and convincing evidence” in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that “it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity” (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

UNDT found that the restructuring and the creation of the new post were undertaken in good faith and the decisions to abolish the applicant’s post and to end his contract were proper. UNDT also found that the applicant was told about the new post and invited to apply. As to the failure to complete the work plan and performance evaluation reports, this was irrelevant because it was not the reason for the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract, and, in any case, was due to the applicant himself. Outcome: The application was dismissed.

There was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, to reach a finding of serious misconduct. The sanction of summary dismissal was fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The applications are dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration’s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant’s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant’s supervisors’ assessment...

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member’s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...

The procedures set out in ST/AI/2002/3 on the performance appraisal system were not complied with. While section 8.3 requires that as soon as a performance shortcoming is identified, the first reporting officer should discuss the situation with the staff member and take steps in consultation with him/her to rectify the situation, in the present case the Applicant received the rating “partially meets performance expectations” without being informed through the performance appraisal system of his shortcomings and thus without being given the opportunity to improve his performance. Since the...

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant’s post was a valid exercise of the Organization’s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

Review of the motivations behind the contested decision: Circumstances intervening after the contested decision was taken may not be considered as showing the motives put forward by the Administration to be false. Even if it was proved that an evaluation of the Applicant’s performance was conducted after his separation, this is not pertinent in examining the decision not to renew his contract, inasmuch as the motive provided therefor was not unsatisfactory performance. Scope of review by the Tribunal: It is not for the Tribunal to determine, when the Administration decides to close one of its...

Grounds for non-renewal: No provision requires the Administration to give the reasons for a non-renewal decision. However, when a staff member contests the non-renewal of his or her contract before the Tribunal, the Organization must provide the reasons for this decision and the staff member has the right to contest the legality of the same.Discretionary power and scope of judicial review: The Administration has discretion to organize its services and thus to finance or not a programme. It is not for the Tribunal to assess the correctness of this kind of decisions.Burden of proof of extraneous...

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...