Home

He was targeted because he was “low hanging fruit”.4 14. (...) He was targeted because he was “low hanging fruit”.24 45. The Tribunal finds the Applicant’s allegations that he was targeted to be baseless. He has not adduced any evidence containing particulars to show how he was targeted.

On 16 April 2010, the UNHCR Representative in Sarajevo submitted to UNHCR headquarters the 2011 Comprehensive Needs Assessment, which included the Prioritization Preview of the Initial Budget Target for the year 2011. The positions that were later to be discontinued, including that of the Applicant, were included in this submission. 5. On 2 August 2010, the Representative was informed by headquarters that UNHCR Sarajevo would be facing important financial constraints, in particular a decrease of USD922,646 of the Initial Budget Target for 2011. 6. On 25 August 2010, the Representative, together with the Administrative and Finance Officer in Sarajevo, verbally explained to the Applicant and three other affected staff members the situation regarding the proposed budget cuts in 2011. 7. (...) It was within the discretion of the Representative to identify the appropriate measures to take to meet the budget targets. It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its views to that of the Administration in such matters; c.

The head of department may however transmit the said proposal only after being satisfied that the Organisation’s human resources planning objectives and targets, particularly as they concern gender and geographical distribution, have been met. 34. (...) Was the allegation that the cancellation of the first vacancy announcement targeted the Applicant’s candidacy well-founded? Was the cancellation made in order to afford the incumbent an opportunity to apply for the post? (...) While I hesitate to make a finding as to whether the Applicant’s candidature was the target of the December 2007 cancellation, the signals are nevertheless most disturbing.

The head of department/office shall ensure that, in making the proposal, he or she has taken into account the Organization’s human resources planning objectives and targets, especially with regard to geography and gender, and provide a certification to that effect to the central review body… Case No. (...) The head of department may however transmit the said proposal only after being satisfied that the Organisation’s human resources planning objectives and targets particularly as they concern gender and geographical distribution have been met in the said proposal. (...) Was the allegation that the cancellation of the first vacancy announcement targeted the Applicant’s candidacy well-founded?

Remedial measures may include counselling, transfer to more suitable functions, additional training and/or the institution of a time-bound performance improvement plan [(“PIP”)], which should include clear targets for improvement, provision for coaching and supervision by the [FRO] in conjunction with performance discussions, which should be held on a regular basis. (...) A [PIP] should include clear targets for improvement, provision for coaching and supervision by the [FRO] in conjunction with regular performance discussions. (...) The Respondent, on the contrary, contends that the decision to undertake a PIP came as a consequence of negative e-PAS reports and comments obtained over three years and that the FRO and SRO informed her about the decision on time, during the mid-term performance review discussion, and that they elaborated on the targets of the PIP carefully, by discussing together, by consulting with OHRM, and by consulting the Applicant in writing and in person on 2 June 2016.

As the record shows, during the 2018/19 reporting cycle, the supervisors took remedial measures to address the performance shortcomings as required under sec. 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5 by holding meetings during which his supervisors identified the Applicant’s performance shortcomings, provided clear targets for improvement, and established a performance plan for four months in order to assist him in improving his performance. 17. (...) As shown in the PIP document, the Applicant did not meet several performance targets, and the Case No. UNDT/NY/2019/084 Order No. 148 (NY/2019) Page 6 of 7 Administration decided not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment under sec. 10.3 of ST/AI/2010/5. 18.

By memorandum dated 31 October 2005, the Medical Service of the Vienna International Centre notified the Administration that the Applicant’s treating specialist considered that she could resume work subject to certain conditions involving adjustments to her working hours and productivity targets. It was also noted in the memorandum that with effect from 31 October 2005, the Applicant would resume her duties working from home. 12. (...) Furthermore, the JAB should have found that the Administration had, in bad faith, ignored the recommendation about her hours of work and productivity targets as well as the decision of the Chief, PRES that she should no longer report to Chief, ECU. (...) The Administration also observed the recommendation of the Medical Service because it agreed that the Applicant’s work would not be subject to productivity targets and made adjustments to her duties and working hours.

Contributing to the development and realization of gender targets as set out in the human resources and OHCHR’s action plans and the High Commissioner’s compact with the Secretary- General. (...) Reviewing the list of applications and recommended candidates prior to its submission to the High Commissioner and central review bodies to ensure that women candidates have been duly considered and that the objective of reaching gender targets has been taken into account, and providing comments to the High Commissioner, as appropriate. (...) In particular: a) Monitor the targets and temporary special measures; Case No.

The Applicant briefly met the outgoing Director of JMOC who told her that the targets imposed for JMOC were unrealistic and that the administrative budget provided from the EMO was insufficient. (...) He advised that she come up with objectives relevant to her targets and business plan and finalize these with FS’ input. 1 UNOPS (Jerusalem Operations Center) Strategic overview 18-21 July 2010. (...) AM had written to the Applicant on 24 November 2010 on the subject of targets for 2011. He stated that the targets and administrative budget allocation for the Region had been reduced and that JMOC had been allocated USD100,000.

The UNDT also overlooked exceptional concerns in support of her request to redact her name, including that exposure of her name has caused her tremendous ancillary stress impeding recovery from her illness, and her security concerns as her professional profile and specialised knowledge make her a potential target for terrorists. She did not file her request for redaction earlier because she had not been so advised by her Counsel and she was unaware of the rules. 10. (...) Insofar as the Appellant cited purportedly exceptional concerns which the UNDT allegedly overlooked, the Judgment on Suspension was silent as to the Appellant’s medical history and the Appellant did not present any evidence that public knowledge of her expertise and affiliation with her prior United Nations office would render her a target. 13. The UNDT’s reference to the timeliness of the Appellant’s request was only intended to determine the efficacy of a potential redaction order.