Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which is superior in the hierarchy of norms to the Staff Rules, states that an applicant should file an application within 90 days following the expiry of the 45-day period for the management evaluation if the Administration has not replied to his/her request. If the Administration replies after the 45-day period but before the expiry of the 90-day period, a new 90-day period to contest a decision before the Tribunal starts to run. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the...

The Deputy High Commissioner, who has received a delegation from the High Commissioner, is legally competent to carry out the management evaluation of a decision taken by the latter. The legality of a decision must be assessed as at the date when it was taken, and not in light of subsequent circumstances. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of facts in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that...

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants¡¯ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

The Tribunal found that both the decision to remove the applicant from her post and the decision to place her on SLWFP constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion pursuant to former staff regulation 1.2 (c) and former staff rule 105.2 (a), respectively. However, the Tribunal also considered that keeping the applicant on SLWFP for four years and four months breached staff rule 105.2 (a), as it did not serve the interests of the Organization. The Tribunal further found that this breach had caused the applicant moral injury for which she should be compensated. Disguised...

The Tribunal rescinds the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s employment and Orders: (i) the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant to a position whose duties she is able to carry out given the impairment she suffers; (ii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant¡¯s lost earnings from the date of termination of her fixed-term appointment to the date of her reinstatement with interest at 8% per month for the said period; (iii) Orders that the Applicant be paid her entitlement to for the period from 28 March 2007 to 31 July 2007 during which period she was entitled to special sick leave...

The decision to remove the Applicant from the position of Rule of Law Project Manager: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter expects all staff members to conduct themselves in accordance with the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. Further, there is implied into every contract of employment a term of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee, which means that both parties must act responsibly and in good faith. Where the employer acts unilaterally in removing an important part of the employee¡¯s functions, the employer would have repudiated the contract of employment. The...

According to former staff regulations 9.1 and 9.3, the decision to offer an agreed termination is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. In accordance with the ¡°note on agreed termination¡±, a guideline used by Administration to ensure equal treatment, the applicant was not in a situation in which the Organization may have considered that an agreed termination was in the interest of the good administration. In fact, his health problems were not grave enough to prevent the proper exercise of his functions in accordance with the recommendations of the Medical Joint Service. Neither did...

Articles 2(1) and 2(1) (a) of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT define a contract of employment to include ¡°all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of the alleged non-compliance. There is nothing before the Tribunal to evidence that the Applicant signed any LOA in relation to the offer made by the organization to employ him on the terms defined in the reassignment memorandum dated 10 June 2008. The reassignment memorandum contained terms that were not certain, that were qualified and cannot therefore besaid to have been a final and binding...

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant¡¯s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

The applicant was entitled to be immediately informed or placed in the same position as he would have been had he been immediately informed. The failure to give timely notice, given the history of the case, gave rise to the legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed. Outcome: Held that the applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal of his contract and that decision not to renew was based on proper grounds and was not affected by irrelevant considerations. Held also that the applicant was entitled to be informed of the decision that he was regarded by the Organization as...