Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested termination decision was lawful.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend.
Finally, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge who denied his suspension of action application should have recused herself. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that recusal is not warranted merely because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge has decided some preliminary issues against the litigant.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the staff member¡¯s appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/017.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/017, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge may have decided some preliminary issues against the litigant.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/017 is affirmed.