Receivability: Noting that the Applicant submitted his Application 3 days before requesting management evaluation of the contested decision and that his request for management evaluation was submitted a month after the deadline for the statutory delay, the Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable.
Request for management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that the Applicant had submitted a request to any entity or individual, including the Secretary-General, mandated to receive management evaluation requests as he did not provide any address, physical or electronic, of these entities or individuals. Nor did the Applicant provide any acknowledgment of receipt of any request for management evaluation by the Administration. The Tribunal subsequently held that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that he had indeed submitted a request for management evaluation of...
The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...
Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has satisfied the requirements of art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. Whilst his request for management evaluation may not have been drafted in the most articulate legal language, the substance conveyed leaves no doubt, the Applicant did not want to be removed from his post and was not happy that it had been readvertized. The Respondent’s objections on the grounds of receivability have no merit.
Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The final decision taken on the placement of the reprimand in the Applicant’s personnel file was on 25 February 2014 when her attempts to have her comments taken into consideration were finally exhausted. The course of action embarked on by the Applicant to have the matter resolved informally before resorting to the formal process was justifiable in the circumstances given the requirements of ST/AI/292.
Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has to all intents and purposes complied with the requirements of art. 8.1 (c). The Administration has had an opportunity to evaluate his request and has refused it. The Applicant is now entitled to come before the Tribunal..
SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...
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 蘑菇视频AMI 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...
No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant’s arguments...
