Â鶹APP

Due process: The Tribunal held that there were two serious procedural flaws that violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights: (i) the UNICEF Handbook unduly restricted the grounds on which the Applicant could rebut her performance appraisal in a way not envisaged by ST/AI/2002/3; and (ii) By misinforming the Applicant and effectively causing her to abandon the other legitimate grounds of rebuttal she had intended to rely on, the Director of Human Resources flawed the whole rebuttal process. Rebuttal process: The Tribunal held that the rebuttal process was also flawed because the Rebuttal Panel...

Receivability Judgment Appealed: As the Applicant remains a staff member early resolution of this case is essential; the facts concerning the disciplinary case and the non-disciplinary issues of demotion are inextricably linked and all of the claims can be expeditiously heard together; the appeal against receivability will take several months to be resolved and will delay the determination of the disciplinary matter. Finally, the issue of receivability may be raised in an appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Written notice: Apart from the events which intervened, he suffered no...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The fact that a staff member is no longer employed by the Organization does not mean that the Organization is not required to notify him or her of the completion of an administrative proceeding related to his or her current or past employment. With respect to the completion of an investigation into allegation filed against him or her, a former staff member benefits from the same rights as a current staff member, including that of being informed of any decision taken by HR related to an investigation of which he was the subject and, as stated in Applicant UNDT/2010/069/Corr.2, ¡°the right to...

Following the Tribunal¡¯s judgment on receivability (Judgment No. UNDT/2012/149) and inter partes discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement or appeal. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the ¡°serious weaknesses in his performance¡± on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s argument that this was a case of non-renewal and found that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated on the grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance for the period of 2007 to 2010. The UNDT found that the performance evaluation report (¡°PER¡±) for 2010 cannot be lawfully relied upon to justify the finding of unsatisfactory performance as the Applicant had no opportunity of a meaningful rebuttal. Therefore, the termination of the Applicant¡¯s contract on the basis of poor performance was unlawful. The UNDT also found that no proper...

. The Applicant claimed that the reason for the contested decision was not disclosed to her until the management evaluation stage and that the reason given was not supported legally or factually. The UNDT found that UNICEF was obliged to provide the Applicant with a reason for the non-renewal of her contract when she requested it. The UNDT found that according to the performance ratings provided prior to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract, her performance, as a matter of law, cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory based on secs. 5.2 and 10.2 of CF/AI/2010-001 (Administrative instruction...

The UNDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.

The Tribunal ruled that the transfer within the recipient organization does not fall within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction and that, hence, the application was irreceivable ratione materiae in this respect. Regarding UNICEF's alleged failure to intervene to prevent the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, while conceding that the Organization has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its employees, the Tribunal found that such duty had not been breached in this case, since the Applicant informed UNICEF of her reassignment only a few days before she ceased being a UNICEF staff member following her inter-organization...