Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Abolition of post: The Tribunal concluded that the Administration was not fair, just, or transparent in its dealings with the Applicant over the discontinuation of his position. The procedure adopted for the discontinuance of the Applicant¡¯s position was not in accordance with the relevant rules, regulation and procedures. The Administration failed to comply with the Guidelines concerning the timing of the written notification of the proposal to the Applicant, discussions with the manger and submission of the proposal to the Budget Committee. The failure to immediately notify him of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant¡¯s contract should not be renewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party¡¯s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application irreceivable in respect of one position due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file a request for management evaluation within the applicable time limit. With respect to the remaining three posts, the Tribunal found that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services) was unlawful, and that the other two selection decisions were not. Consequently, the Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services), set the amount of alternative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the conduct of the Acting Chief of Mission Support and the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisor constituted an abuse of authority in their treatment of the Applicant. Given the gross injustice meted out to the Applicant by her managers, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded her compensation representing twelve months' net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant three months¡¯ net base salary as moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant USD5,000 for the unfair treatment at the hands of her managers. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the two managers literally destroyed the Applicant¡¯s career and made decisions in clear breach of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner¡¯s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members¡¯ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner¡¯s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members¡¯ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

The Tribunal noted that: (a) there was no female member in the assessment panel, (b) the panel¡¯s evaluation of the candidates was substantially modified between its adoption by all three panel members and its scrutiny by the competent Central Review Committee (¡°CRC¡±), (c) the Hiring Manager failed to transmit his final recommendation to the decision-maker; instead the CRC Secretariat forwarded the selection record (with only one recommended candidate) to the decision-maker, and (d) the Applicant was not notified of his non-selection within the prescribed 14 days of the decision; rather, he...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was unlawful on the grounds that 1) the Organization committed several procedural errors in the implementation of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Policy and Procedures for the Promotion of International Professional Staff Members (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR/HCP/2014/2) (¡°Promotions Policy¡±), some of which resulted in a failure to take into account relevant information or to take into account irrelevant considerations; and 2) the Organization failed to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion received fair and full consideration. Standard of review: In the context of a...

Standard of review: In the context of a promotion exercise conducted under a specific policy, the Tribunal¡¯s review is essentially focused on the implementation of the policy. It is not the Tribunal¡¯s role to examine whether a policy adopted by the Organization is well-founded or appropriate. However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair consideration for promotion. The Tribunal cannot amend a policy adopted by the Organization but may ¡°point out what...

As results from the evidence and from the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the contested decision consisted in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB¡¯s recommendation against awarding the Applicant any compensation, which was included in the minutes of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB¡¯s 343rd meeting of 20 February 2014 submitted for the ASG/Controller¡¯s consideration on 4 April 2014.The Tribunal, after reviewing the content of the contested decision, finds that instead of making her own final and reasoned decision on the Applicant¡¯s claim, the ASG/Controller appears to have only signed off on the recommendation made by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB to deny the claim on 23...