Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Administrative errors - As held in Boutruche, the Administration has a right and even an obligation to put an end to illegal situations as soon as it becomes aware of them, while preserving any rights acquired by staff members in good faith. Staff-management consultations - No staff-management consultations as envisaged by staff rule 8.1(f) were required given the particular circumstances of this case. The documentary record also establishes that, having discovered the error, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON Administration made genuine efforts to consult with the Applicant and other affected staff members to correct...

Administrative errors - As held in Boutruche, the Administration has a right and even an obligation to put an end to illegal situations as soon as it becomes aware of them, while preserving any rights acquired by staff members in good faith. Staff-management consultations - No staff-management consultations as envisaged by staff rule 8.1(f) were required given the particular circumstances of this case. The documentary record also establishes that, having discovered the error, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON Administration made genuine efforts to consult with the Applicant and other affected staff members to correct...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines and its rules and procedures, namely: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON management abused its authority in refusing to release the Applicant on mission assignment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID and in denying him the grant of a lien on his post. The failure by the Ethics Office in refusing to act on the basis of the report of retaliation filed by the Applicant and its failure to take all necessary action to protect the Applicant from retaliation.

Receivability -...

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has to all intents and purposes complied with the requirements of art. 8.1 (c). The Administration has had an opportunity to evaluate his request and has refused it. The Applicant is now entitled to come before the Tribunal..

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the procedure followed by the ASG/OHRM to reach her decision to close the complaint, and found that although the Chief, JMS, did not follow the correct procedure of consulting with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Medical Director about the request for the Applicant not to attend work, it was open to the ASG/OHRM to conclude that the conduct of the Chief, JMS, did not warrant any disciplinary or administrative action. Indeed, the Tribunal considered that the Chief, JMS, faced a complex situation, which included the Applicant¡¯s illness and the potential for disrupting patients of the JMS clinic. The...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant¡¯s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM¡¯s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM¡¯s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

Role of the MEU - The MEU¡¯s role is restricted to conducting an impartial and objective evaluation of administrative decisions contested by staff members of the Secretariat to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with rules and regulations and not to act as Co-Counsel for the Respondent. Respondent¡¯s disclosure of legally privileged email communications between the Applicant¡¯s Counsel and MEU - Such activity compromises the perception of MEU as an independent, impartial and objective Unit and ¡°would leadto the complete absence of any form of communication or possible mediation...

The Tribunal held that the denial of the Applicant¡¯s request for retroactive promotion was lawful. The Tribunal advanced the following reasons: a) It was legitimate for the ASG/OHRM to invoke a reason for denial of retroactive promotion that would have created technical problems and additional costs as pension contributions; b) The deninal of the Applicant¡¯s request for a retroactive promotion was not unlawful because of the length of the selection process, given that the selection concerned a promotion for a D-1 position requiring utmost care in the examination and consideration of the...

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of ¡°supervisor ¡° as per the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON Security and Safety Service (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide ¡°security...