UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT determined that the decision to maintain the staff member’s performance rating “C – Partially meets expectations” constituted a reviewable administrative decision that had direct legal effect on his employment. It observed that under the applicable legal framework, a rating of “Partially meets expectations” justifies a determination that a salary increment is not warranted, and that the increment shall be withheld pending the outcome of a PIP. The UNAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.
The UNAT also concluded that the staff member’s appeal before the JAB was filed within the statutory deadline. It noted that he had two months following the contested decision received on 14 September 2023, to seek a review of that decision, which he did on 13 November 2023. Following the ISA Secretary-General’s rejection of that request for review on 24 November 2023, he had one month to appeal to the JAB, which he did on 24 December 2023.
The UNAT granted the appeal and reversed the JAB Decision. It remanded the case to the JAB for consideration on the merits.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
JAB Decision: A staff member of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) contested the decision of the ISA Secretary-General not to implement the recommendation of the Performance Review Panel (PRP) to reverse his appraisal rating “C – Partially meets expectations”.
In its Decision on Receivability No. IBSA/JAB/CARTER/2023, the Joint Appeals Board of the ISA (JAB) dismissed the staff member’s application as not receivable on the grounds that he had not contested a reviewable administrative decision.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An appealable administrative decision must produce direct and immediate (as opposed to future) legal consequences affecting the staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment. What constitutes an appealable administrative decision must be determined in light of the particular circumstances of each case.
The decision to place a staff member on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is not an appealable final administrative decision, as a PIP constitutes a preliminary step designed to address a staff member’s shortcomings during a performance cycle. Such a preliminary step does not amount to an administrative decision subject to appeal.
However, the granting of salary increments conditional upon satisfactory performance, as well as the withholding of such increments pending the outcome of a PIP, forms part of the staff member’s conditions of service. Decisions giving rise to these consequences therefore have direct and significant legal effects. Accordingly, a performance assessment, affirmed by a Rebuttal Panel, that rates a staff member’s performance as “partially satisfactory” constitutes an administrative decision subject to judicial review.