�鶹��ý

Compensation in lieu is “not related at all to the economic loss suffered” (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal’s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, at the time UNICEF sought to make the correction from termination to non-renewal, the staff member was already separated from service, and it was, therefore, too late to reverse the decision. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the staff member’s separation from service was termination on grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance and that the Administration’s decision to reverse the decision was untimely and ineffective. UNAT held that there was no reason to reverse UNDT’s finding that the staff member had been deprived of a...

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law when it found UNICEF’s decision not to renew Mr Said’s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT did not accord any deference to UNICEF’s conclusion that Mr Said’s performance was poor and, instead, UNDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. UNAT held that UNDT made...

UNAT considered all arguments made on appeal. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in UNDT’s findings. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s findings that the Approving Authority’s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. UNAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

Identification of contested decisions: An application must properly single out each and every administrative decision that an applicant wishes to contest in a clear and concise manner, failing which the application could be deemed irreceivable. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has an inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision impugned by a party and identify what is in fact being contested.Promises binding on the Administration: Where a staff member claims that he or she had a legitimate expectation arising from a promise made by the Administration, such expectation must...

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 Tribunal held that the Applicant’s claim regarding separation from service was not receivable ratione materiae. With respect to his non-selection, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had satisfactorily established that there was a flaw in the recruitment process and that this flaw had breached his right to due process. He was awarded 3 months compensation. Bias: The Tribunal concluded that by not shortlisting the Applicant initially due to an uninvestigated incident from 2009 it was obvious that the decision makers had already formed an adverse view of the Applicant. Consequently, doubt...

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent’s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant’s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant’s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...

The UNDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...

The Tribunal found that after a first positive evaluation in 2012, the Applicant’s first reporting officer had put the Applicant on notice in respect of what she perceived as shortcomings in the Applicant’s performance, at the beginning of the performance cycle 2013/14. It found, however, that the Rebuttal process was marked by serious procedural flaws and ruled that the final decision on the rebuttal, confirming the Applicant’s PAS rating for the cycle 2013, was illegal and could not stand. Therefore, and since the decision not to extend the Applicant’s appointment beyond 30 June 2014 was...