UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The Dispute Tribunal found that the Applicant did not manage to lift her burden of proving that the non-renewal of her contract was not due to poor performance and found instead that the decision was lawful.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant appealed the non-renewal of her appointment on the grounds of poor performance and claimed that the decision to separate her was procedurally flawed and tainted with bias.
Legal Principle(s)
The Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) institution was justified and established in a fair manner and without bias: Secs. 10.1 and 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/5 provide that the institution of a PIP follows the identification of a staff member’s performance shortcomings, that its purpose is to assist the staff member in improving his/her performance during the PIP implementation, that the PIP it to be prepared in consultation, and not in negotiation, with the staff member, and that the non-renewal of the staff member’s contract should be decided after the finalization of the PIP process in the event the performance has not improved.