Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision to maintain the staff member¡¯s performance rating ¡°C ¨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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that as per ISA¡¯s Staff Rule the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the competence to ¡°order an interim measure to provide temporary relief to either party to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the decision taken at the first instance level¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also has jurisdiction to order interim measures in appropriate cases arising out of an ISA dispute as is the case in Mr. Hall¡¯s Motion.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Hall had failed to demonstrate that relief by way of interim measures was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the JAB¡¯s decision. Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that beyond reporting the possible prohibited conduct concerning non-compliance with the United Nations financial rules and regulations to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the staff member had no further interest in law in the conduct of the investigation or its outcome. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there was no basis for his assertion that OIOS had declined to conduct an investigation into his report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding the application concerning this decision not receivable.

Regarding the staff member¡¯s complaint of...

The Tribunal noted the Applicant¡¯s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual employment rights.

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant¡¯s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization¡¯s ¡°zero-tolerance¡± policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± but ¡°reasonable grounds to believe¡±, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.