The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.
Although requested by the Registry to file supporting documentation, including the contested decision and a request for management evaluation, the Applicant did not provide it. The Tribunal declared the application non-receivable, since it was not directed against an administrative decision as per the terms of Tribunal¡¯s Statute, and the Applicant had not submitted the contested decisions for management evaluation.
The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...
The disciplinary sanction was based on the finding that he had made a material misrepresentation on several personal history forms when applying for jobs. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it has been established that on three occasions¡ªsometime in or around October 2011, on 25 March 2005 and on 21 February 2007¡ªthe Applicant¡¯s personal history forms incorrectly indicated he did not have ¡°relatives employed by a public international organization¡±, whereas his brother was in fact employed by the United Nations until 8 December 2008. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the established facts did not amount to...
The application was not receivable because the Applicant was a former staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIDO. While the Applicant had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, his case would have been properly filed either with ILOAT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.
Receivability - Article 7.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure requires that any application seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement must be filed within 90 calendar days of the last day for implementation as specified in the agreement and where dates for the implementation are not stated, the application must be filed within thirty calendar days of the signing of the settlement agreement.An examination of the Settlement Agreement between the parties shows that no date was stipulated for its implementation. Any application challenging it must therefore be brought within 30 days...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights had been respected, that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established and amounted to misconduct, and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the offence, and rejected the application. Misconduct: Under the relevant rules, misrepresentation, forgery or false certification in connection with an official claim or benefit¡ªwhich can include failure to disclose a fact material to that claim or benefit¡ªcan be ¡°wilful, reckless or grossly negligent¡±. Gross negligence is defined as ¡°an extreme or aggravated...
The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.
Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...
Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...
