Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair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...

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 However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair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...

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 However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair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...

The Tribunal rescinded the contested decisions and awarded USD50,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

he Tribunal rescinded the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment and ordered the Respondent to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment retroactively from 7 June 2014. As the contested decision concerned a question of appointment, the Respondent was given the alternative option of paying the Applicant USD5,000 in compensation. The Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages was rejected.

The Tribunal found that her separation upon the expiry of her contract was not the subject matter of the Application before it. Damages for moral injury ¨C As held by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Asariotis, damages for moral injury may arise in two situations: first, for a fundamental breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract, and/or from a breach of procedural due process entitlements; secondly, where the employee has produced evidence of harm, stress or anxiety caused by the breach.

Starting date for time limits: Time limits must be counted from the moment all facts necessary to the commencement of the case were known, or at least should have reasonably been known .Publication of vacancies: The Administration is uncontestably required to announce existing and foreseeable vacancies to be filled. If more than one vacancy is to be advertised under the same JO, the JO in question needs to clearly indicate so. Non-retroactive application of the Statute¡¯s amendment: An amendment of the applicable rules cannot apply to an application filed prior to the entry into force of said...

Formal requirements: It is justified to request a complainant to conform to the requirements of format and content of secs. 5.11 and 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. However, as a matter of fairness, the same degree of exigency must be required from the different complainants. Purpose and material scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated to address very specific kinds of conduct, defined in its sec. 1. Re-characterizing allegations of a different nature and having them investigated under the bulletin is a misuse of the procedure. Investigating a complaint and its counter-complaint together...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...