The Tribunal found that the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9 did not allow the reclassification of the Applicant’s post and concluded accordingly that the Applicant had no grounds for contesting the refusal to reclassify his post. The Tribunal further found that the Administration’s delays in notifying the Applicant of the reclassification decision, even though the decision was well-founded, had caused him to suffer moral damage, for which the Tribunal awarded EUR2,000.
Considering that the Respondent’s allegation that the Applicant’s contract was not renewed for unsatisfactory performance during the period 2009-2010, the Tribunal noted that the rating “Partially meets performance expectations” had been considered by the Rebuttal Panel as unfair and changed to “Fully meets performance expectations”. In the light of this finding the Tribunal took the view that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance for the year 20092010 was prima facie unlawful.
When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant’s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.
The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...
Reasons for non-renewal: While the Administration is not bound to provide a staff member with the reasons for the non-renewal of his or her appointment, when the staff member contests before the Tribunal the legality of the non-renewal decision, holding that the motives behind were unlawful, the Administration must communicate to the Tribunal such motives and show they were real.
Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The UNDT ordered: (i) USD50,000 for the breach of the Applicant’s right to be properly considered for an appointment beyond 31 December 2005 and resultant harm; (ii) USD20,000 for anxiety and emotional distress. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to give full, fair, and proper consideration to the Applicant’s candidacy, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Bureau of the COP. The UNDT found that had the Respondent followed proper procedure and afforded proper consideration, the Applicant stood a significantly high chance of receiving an...
Legitimate expectation: The Tribunal held that while a legitimate expectation can be created by an express promise on the part of the Organization, given the special nature of fixed-term contracts within the Organization an expectation of contract renewal may also be based on the surrounding circumstances, including the practices of the Organization. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal concluded that since there was a practice of renewing the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment, he was entitled to expect its continued renewal unless there was a legitimate reason for not renewing the...
An “effective remedy” under ST/SGB/2008/5: The Tribunal concluded that the Administration is obliged to provide an effective remedy where a complaint of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5 is substantiated. The breadth of possible remedies that may be granted includes, but is not limited to, monetary compensation, rescission and injunctive or protective measures.
If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply “give” the Applicant another position within UNEP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate...
The UNDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. The Tribunal was of the view that it behoves the Applicant to submit to a classification review of her post in accordance with the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career...
