Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Noting that the Applicant had conceded that his application was filed after the time limit set out in art. 8.1(d)(i)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable rationae temporis because the Applicant failed to comply with the 90-day filing deadline set out in art. 8.1(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal then deliberated on the Applicant¡¯s assertion that his application is receivable because the interpretation of art. 8.1(d)(i)(b) is unfair to staff members as it favours an administration that has failed to address management evaluation requests in violation of staff...

After being presented with the allegations of misconduct on 9 July 2014, the Applicant responded on 21 August 2014. The decision to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant was communicated to him on 4 December 2014. Thus, a review of the entire case against the Applicant and communicating to him of the outcome took a little over three months. This time frame was not unreasonable and did not constitute a breach of due process. On the facts before the Tribunal, the Applicant did not adduce any evidence to give the Tribunal a basis for reviewing the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s intentional actions amounted to misconduct. Although the Applicant did not receive any money from the health insurance company, the mere fact that he attempted to defraud the company by knowingly submitting false information constituted a violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and amounted to misconduct. Whereas the Applicant contended that his termination was disproportionate particularly in view of his 17 years of service to the Organisation and his continuous satisfactory performance, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to...

In light of the parties¡¯ agreement, the Tribunal accordingly entered judgment as follows: a) The Applicant would be paid four months¡¯ net base salary at the level he encumbered prior to his separation from service on 9 August 2013. b) The Applicant would be paid eight months¡¯ net base salary at the level he encumbered prior to his separation from service on 9 August 2013, less the USD equivalent of EUR59,000 calculated as specified below. c) Pursuant to rule 106.5(a) of the United Nations¡¯ Financial Regulations and Rules, the operational rate of exchange, as established by the Under-Secretary...

An assault on a co-worker in connection with work constitutes misconduct, no matter the type of contract or appointment. The direct evidence from written statements, confirmed by strong circumstantial evidence adduced both in the investigation and at the hearing, taken cumulatively constitute a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. In the Applicant¡¯s case, whereas the Tribunal would not be inclined to rely heavily on ¡°character witnesses¡± heard rather selectively, the mere fact that the...

The Administration, contrary to its own policies, took into account the Applicant¡¯s functional title only without considering his actual functions vis-¨¤-vis the other P-4 posts in the JAOC. By neglecting to look beyond the Applicant¡¯s functional title, the Administration unlawfully determined that the Applicant would be subject to a dry-cut. Significantly, the Applicant held a continuing appointment. Thus, applying the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL Guidelines to the present case, the Applicant should have been automatically retained since there were, at the time of this application, other P-4 staff members in his...

The impugned decision did not fall under any of the exceptions; the Applicant, therefore, was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so. Thus, the application was not receivable.

In light of the Respondent¡¯s acceptance of the findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Ethics Office that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor had engaged in retaliatory acts against the Applicant, the Tribunal did not examine or make any findings on the issue of liability for retaliation. The Tribunal¡¯s review was limited to the issue of compensation. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that the cancellation of her e-PAS and the failure to promptly issue another one negatively affected her ability to find other employment within the service of the Organization. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not shown...

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...

With regard to GJO No. 425940, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified on 19 February 2014 that his application had been unsuccessful. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision until over four years later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claim relating to GJO No. 425940 was not receivable ratione materiae and it was dismissed. For GJO No. 76109, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that the Administration did not give his candidacy fair and adequate...