Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT contradicted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the non-extension of Mr Houenou¡¯s temporary appointment was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the mission¡¯s budgetary situation.

Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found in Villamoran Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/126, that the mandatory 31-day break in service for staff between their fixed-term and temporary appointments, if not supported by law, is prima facie unlawful. The Respondent was ordered to provide evidence to support the decision but failed to do so. The evidence submitted neglected to show the publication date or the precise method of publication of the revised administrative instruction. The Administration has an obligation to properly announce amendments to Staff rules and regulations for decisions to be proper and made...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Panel on Discrimination and other Grievances, which was the body mandated to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint, failed to act expeditiously in bringing the Applicant¡¯s case to conclusion, finish its investigation, and issue its final report, as required by ST/AI/308/Rev.1. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization failed to properly address the Applicant¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination and was thus in breach of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not prove that any actual economic loss warranting compensation was caused to him...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of irreparable damage and particular urgency. The application for suspension of action was rejected.

Consultations: ¡°Consultation with the appropriate staff representative bodies¡± does not mean that for an administrative instruction to enter into force, it must necessarily meet the agreement of the staff representatives.Acquired right: An acquired right is breached only when an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental or essential terms of employment.Irreparable damage: Mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable damage. Harm to professional reputation and career prospects, or harm to health, or sudden loss of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...