Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The Respondent failed to secure the attendance of two victims at the remanded hearing. Four witnesses testified before the Tribunal, including only one victim. None of their testimonies corroborates the charges as laid. On the contrary, they are exculpatory in so far as all three witnesses testify that they did not see the Applicant doing anything improper at the event in question. Accordingly, there is no effective response to the concerns that formed the basis for the Appeals Tribunals¡¯ decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

Neither the allegations memorandum nor the sanction...

The written reprimand

Factual basis for the imposition of the measure

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPAD, as an ad hoc special interest group, advocates for issues relating to conditions of work pertaining to staff members of African descent in the United Nations.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS is established ¡°to make available confidential services of impartial and independent persons to address work-related issues of staff members¡± (see ST/SGB/2016/7 para 1.1). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS is guided in its work by four core principles, namely independence, confidentiality, neutrality, and informality.

It appeared from the information on record that the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful on the basis that the selected candidate had more experience than the Applicant and was therefore appropriately ranked the strongest candidate. Based on the documented record and the recommendation of the Hiring Manager, the Executive Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat lawfully selected the candidate best suited for the functions of the position, taking into account the Organization¡¯s gender targets. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration had shown that the applicable procedure was followed and that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy was...

The Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of ¡°successful candidates¡± for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not meet the criteria which would entitle him to seek recourse within the internal justice system. From the documents before the Tribunal follows that the Applicant is not a United Nations staff member. The Applicant¡¯s submissions do not establish that an offer of employment had been issued and the Applicant does not provide any evidence that he is entitled to contract-based rights with a view to employment as a staff member within the Organization. The Administration did not undertake to conclude a contract for the recruitment of the Applicant as a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in any case the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/028, the Tribunal rejected the application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2021/023, finding that the Applicant is ineligible for boarding allowance for his child. In this case, the Applicant essentially challenges the same decision to find him ineligible for boarding allowance for his child, the issue of which was already resolved in Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/028. Therefore, under the doctrine of res judicata, the Tribunal rejects the present application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made several findings on the appeal. First, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...