Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate and without prejudice to the Applicant¡¯s right, if necessary, to file an application under art. 2.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute seeking to enforce the implementation of the agreement reached through mediation.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn in its entirety, including on the merits, with no right of reinstatement. The Applicant having confirmed that she was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of her application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.
Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...
The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent¡¯s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant¡¯s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...
The Tribunal concludes that it was unreasonable and wrong to have withdrawn the offer of the FS-5 position. The matter is made worse as the offer was withdrawn after a long period of protracted exchange of correspondence between the Applicant and the Respondent. Informal dispute resolution: It is obvious that meaningful consultations towards the resolution of a dispute, when deliberated on in good faith, would serve the interest of management and the staff member. It would engender a collegial work environment and remove the antagonism and friction that usually results from workplace disputes...
The Tribunal found that: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant¡¯s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...
The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...
The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/094. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87¨C88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal¡¯s order in para. 87 of Sprauten Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...
The Tribunal found the Applicant's reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General's discretion and dismissed the application. Reassignment of the Applicant: The Tribunal found that the relocation of the Applicant to Kuwait was prompted by administrative and humanitarian reasons based on space constraints in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI in order to accommodate more humanitarian staff who were dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Secretary-General's exercise of discretion was not tainted by any improper motives. Payment of DSA, hardship and mobility...
