Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the General Assembly¡¯s decision to eliminate one P-4 Political Affairs Officer post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI was lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that there was no unreasonableness or unlawfulness in the terms of reference for the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Turk¡¯s allegations regarding his performance ratings for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ core values, and that the wrong Personal History Profile (PHP) for him was used. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the PHP which was used in the comparative review process was advantageous to Mr. Turk. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Turk had not carried his burden to prove bias and discrimination by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI, and also rejected Mr. Turk¡¯s complaints about the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge. In sum, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Turk¡¯s confidence in his own qualifications could not undermine the outcome of the comparative review process. Finally, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it was not the role of the Appeals Tribunal to conduct its own investigation into Mr. Turk¡¯s claims.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/118, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal dismissed Mr. Turk¡¯s application in which he challenged the Administration¡¯s decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the downgrading of the type of post that Mr. Turk held was lawful, and that the comparative review process among affected staff members in this post was substantively and procedurally fair. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no evidence of discriminatory treatment of Mr. Turk.
Mr. Turk appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive. The staff member has the burden to prove such factors played a role in the administrative decision.
It is a well-established principle that the decisions made by the General Assembly, such as those related to administrative and budgetary matters, are not subject to challenge in the internal justice system.
The standard of judicial review of a recommendation from a comparative review process is that the Tribunals will assess whether the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules have been applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner.
It is not the role of the Tribunals to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Secretary-General nor to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.
It is not the role of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to gather evidence.