̽����ѡ

The UNAT held that the UNDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance.  The UNAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard.  The UNAT observed that he had received “partially meets performance expectations” for two performance cycles, and “does not meet expectations” for the most recent performance cycle.  He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

 a. Whether the Applicant’s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant’s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of “partially meets performance expectations” for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of “does not meet performance expectations” for the 2020-2021 cycle.

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant’s performance evaluations...

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant’s performance was rated as either “partially meets performance expectations” or “does not meet performance expectations” since 2015, except for one cycle in which she “fully met” expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

The scope of judicial review in termination cases due to unsatisfactory service is limited to reviewing whether the appointment was lawfully terminated based on the applicable rules. It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct a review of the performance evaluation process or to determine a different performance rating. In this case, the Applicant was notified that based on the 2020-2021 overall rating of “does not meet performance expectations” and the 2019-2020 “partially meets performance expectations”, the Administration decided to terminate his continuing appointment. Having examined...

Whether the Administration provided a valid and fair reason for the contested decision In determining whether a valid and fair reason exists to terminate the Applicant’s appointment for unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will examine in turn the following issues: i. Whether the Applicant in fact failed to meet the performance standards; ii. Whether he was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required standards; iii. Whether he was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standards; and iv. Whether termination of appointment is an appropriate action for...

UNAT held that the UNDT’s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the UNFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to UNFPA. UNAT rejected UNDT’s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant’s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. UNAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination...

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant’s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican’s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...