Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the DM post under the framework established by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Tribunal finds that, had the Applicant been afforded proper consideration for the DM post as a displaced permanent staff member, he would have had fifty per cent chance of being selected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the selection process was tainted by bias against the Applicant. Having considered relevant factors¡ªnamely, that (i) the Applicant lost a fifty per cent chance of being selected...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remanded the Applicant¡¯s request to the Secretary-General for consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT directed that, within one month of the date of this judgment, the Applicant shall submit any further documentation to the MSD New York that he wishes to be taken into consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further ordered that, within 90 calendar days of the date of this Judgment, the Respondent, through a properly designated office, shall render a decision on the Applicant¡¯s request.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9(6)(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s termination was unlawful because he did not receive proper...

The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to fulfil its obligations by not making timely payments to the Applicant under art. 11.2(d) of Appendix D for the two periods concerned, and that the amounts paid to the Applicant did not compensate him for the delay in payment as they should have. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant material damages in the amount of USD29,261.86 plus CHF10,544.50, and compensation for any additional taxes due by the Applicant, upon presentation of his tax declarations to the Respondent, resulting from the receipt of a lump sum of USD72,266.46 in 2015, instead of...

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect to the 2011¨C2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...

United Nations core competency of Communication - Due to sheer incompetence and inefficiency, the Respondent¡¯s agents did not exhibit professionalism when they failed in their duty to give proper, timely and accurate information regarding his employment and health status to the Applicant. They failed also to exhibit the core competency of communication which is required of every staff member. Requirement to file a management evaluation request - The new claims the Applicant sought to be allowed to introduce as part of this case which was instituted in 2012 are separate and distinct issues...

Interpretation of art. 10.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal - The question arises whether the Tribunal should seek and obtain the concurrence of the Secretary-General before correcting a procedural error in the decision making process of the ABCC or the Secretary-General himself. The Tribunal in the circumstances of the present case is not prepared to allow its power of judicial review to be circumscribed by art. 10.4. It is not deemed that the concurrence of the Secretary-General is necessary to take the appropriate remedial measure if this is found to be necessary. The Secretary...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...