UNDT/2011/013

UNDT/2011/013, Mandol

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

While finding that there had been a procedural flaw in the FOPA evaluation, inasmuch as the Applicant had been denied a rebuttal, the Tribunal considered that there was not causal effect between this flaw and the non-renewal decision, noting that the contested decision refers only to the third and last appraisal, which was made in accordance with the applicable rules. Resolution 59/296 and reappointment of 300 series staff members under 100 series: The said resolution authorises the Secretary-General to reappoint staff members holding an appointment under the 300 series of former Staff Rules. It gives a discretionary power to the Administration, provided a number of conditions are fulfilled. By no means does it entail an automatic right to conversion for the staff members. Renewal of appointments under the 300 series of former Staff Rules: The decision to renew a contract governed by the 300 series of former Staff Rules falls within the discretionary power of the Administration. This power is not unfettered, as the Organization must act in good faith and observe the applicable procedural rules; its decisions must not be arbitrary or based on extraneous factors; and they must not be based on erroneous, fallacious or unlawful motives. While the Administration is not bound to give the reasons for its decision not to renew a contract, it must communicate the motive(s) thereof when the staff member contests the decision before the Tribunal. Performance appraisal for staff members appointed under the former Staff Rules 300 series: It results from a combined reading of former staff rule 301.4 and section 1 of ST/AI/2002/3 that 300-series staff members falling within this category must have their performance evaluated; however, this evaluation must not necessarily be conducted in accordance with ST/AI/2002/3. Having said that, whenever the Administration has showed that it intended to apply the system set out in ST/AI/2002/3 to the evaluation of a particular staff member, it will be bound to observe the provisions of this administrative instruction. Outcome: Application rejected on the merits

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his contract.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Mandol

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :