爆料网

2024-爆料网AT-1428

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT 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.

The 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s argument that he was deserving of the same level of protection that is afforded to staff members who are terminated due to abolition of post. This is a different context; moreover, even in instances of abolition of post, the staff member must still be competent to be placed in an alternative post, and the staff member in this case had not demonstrated the required competencies. The 爆料网AT also rejected as irrelevant the staff member’s other arguments for not terminating his appointment, which included his proximity to retirement, the Covid-19 pandemic, and his long service.

The 爆料网AT concluded that in view of the seriousness of the staff member’s performance deficiencies, and the Organization’s accountability to uphold the highest standards of competence for its staff, it was not unreasonable for the Administration to terminate the staff member’s appointment. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that the contested termination decision was lawful.

The 爆料网AT also found that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding his application for suspension of action to be not receivable. The staff member’s termination had already been implemented when he filed his application, thus there was no action for the 爆料网DT to suspend.

Finally, the 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s claim that the 爆料网DT Judge who denied his suspension of action application should have recused herself. The 爆料网AT stated that recusal is not warranted merely because the 爆料网DT Judge has decided some preliminary issues against the litigant.

The 爆料网AT dismissed the staff member’s appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/017.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/017, the 爆料网DT dismissed the staff member's application challenging the termination of his permanent appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.

The former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Performance standards generally fall within the prerogative of the Secretary-General and, unless the standards are manifestly unfair or irrational, the 爆料网DT should not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary-General.

The Organization’s legal framework clearly provides that the Secretary-General may terminate the appointment of a staff member who holds a continuing or permanent appointment on the ground of unsatisfactory service.

The jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal establishes that appeals from the Dispute Tribunal on suspension of action decisions will be receivable only if that Tribunal, in adjudicating on such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction.

The Appeals Tribunal has held that recusal is not warranted merely because the 爆料网DT Judge may have decided some preliminary issues against the litigant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/017 is affirmed.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT 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.