Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a part of the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the United Nations Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar in her letter. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member had a duty to promptly disclose to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA that she was under investigation when she resigned from Oxfam¨Ca fact that it considered relevant to her suitability for the position. It noted that the application form included a specific question about whether she resigned while under investigation, indicating her awareness of the Organisation¡¯s core values. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also emphasized that her letter of appointment stated that she was responsible for providing any required information during both the application process and subsequent employment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the deductions made for...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the ¡°non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds¡±. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was ¡°due to lack of funds¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...