Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Lawfulness of non-renewal decision: The Tribunal held that the instructions from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHQ about the need for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIL to cut its budget by downsizing provided ample justification for the restructuring of the Mission which included the down-grading of a number of posts, including that encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal was satisfied that the reasons for the restructuring were genuine. Abolition of post: The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was clear on its face that it was due to budget cuts and downsizing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reference to the abolition of the...

Downsizing: The Tribunal found that the decision to cut the Applicant¡¯s post and to not renew her appointment beyond its expiry was made in the context of the downsizing of the Mission. It was a rational decision made in light of the needs of the Organization. It was made and conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the information circulars. It was, with the exception of the short delay in conveying the actual decision, procedurally regular and lawful.Comparative review process: The Tribunal concluded noted that the functional title of the Applicant¡¯s post did not match the...

Lawfulness of competency-based interview: On the basis of the context and requirements of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual and the Inspira Recruiter¡¯s Manual, the Tribunal interpreted section 1(c) of ST/AI/2010/3 as requiring that an assessment panel should normally have three members that must include a female and two subject matter experts. Given this interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the Panel was not properly constituted as it did not have two subject matter experts. The Tribunal accepted that in evaluating candidates for selection there is inevitably some overlap of the competencies...

Abolition of post: The Tribunal concluded that the Administration was not fair, just, or transparent in its dealings with the Applicant over the discontinuation of his position. The procedure adopted for the discontinuance of the Applicant¡¯s position was not in accordance with the relevant rules, regulation and procedures. The Administration failed to comply with the Guidelines concerning the timing of the written notification of the proposal to the Applicant, discussions with the manger and submission of the proposal to the Budget Committee. The failure to immediately notify him of the...

Restructuring process: The Tribunal concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in either the creation of Oversight and Support Division (OSD) or the subsequent restructuring/realignment process. Both were undertaken in a fully transparent manner, with full consultation of all staff members including the Applicant. Sufficiency of reasons: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given reasons for the decision on more than one occasion including those conveyed to her by her staff representative following a meeting with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Senior Management. These reasons were based on the...

Lateral reassignment: The Tribunal held that the decision to laterally transfer the Applicant was lawful as it fulfilled the conditions for such a transfer as set out in Rees. The new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; the responsibilities involved corresponded to his level; the functions to be performed were commensurate with the Applicant¡¯s competence and skills and the Applicant had substantial experience in the field. Reasons for the contested decision: The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s complaints about the lack of or the adequacy of reasons for the decision were unsubstantiated...

Provision of adverse material to the Applicant: The Tribunal noted that the ABCC had information before it that was adverse to the Applicant¡¯s claim when it reached its recommended decision but did not disclose to the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant should have been given the opportunity to see and comment on the adverse material. In failing to afford him this basic right the ABCC violated the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Service incurred injury: The Tribunal concluded that it was not within the competence of the MSD medical advisor to provide...

Receivability: The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s subsequent correspondence with the ONUCI Human Resources Office after he was notified of the decision did not constitute a new or discrete decision. He failed to meet the 60 day deadline set out in staff rule 11.2(c) for management evaluation. Consequently, his Application is not receivable.

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that the Applicant had the option of lodging a formal complaint of gender discrimination under ST/SGB/2008/5 but chose not to. However this does not prevent her from alleging, as she does, that the classification decision which she is challenging was ill-motivated by reason of gender discrimination. The Tribunal concluded that in determining whether the decision to abolish her post was ill-motivated it is competent to examine each of the Applicant¡¯s allegations against the relevant facts and circumstances.

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that there is a difference between a contested administrative decision and the grounds relied on to impugn the decision and noted that neither of the two issues remanded for the consideration of the Tribunal was included in the list of administrative decisions which the Applicant requested the MEU to review. The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant raised the issue of the non-conversion of his temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment, he did so as a ground for contesting the specified decisions. He did not identify this issue as a...

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB showed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant¡¯s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant¡¯s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant¡¯s claim for...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

The Tribunal concluded that there were procedural violations that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. The Tribunal ordered rescission of the decision or compensation of six months¡¯ net base salary in lieu of rescission. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal concluded that the investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment and the subsequent disciplinary process were in breach of the procedures required by ST/SGB/2008/5 and the IGO Guidelines for Conducting Investigations and that these procedural errors were sufficiently grave to render the...

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision was made following the correct procedure and was based on well-founded evidence. Accordingly, the Application was dismissed. Denial of claim based on evidentiary grounds: The Tribunal observed that in assessing the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation, the principle issue for the ABCC was whether the injury resulted as a natural incident of performing duties on behalf of the United Nations. This was a question of fact to be established by evidence. The Tribunal held that the functions of ABCC include making recommendations on claims for...

The Tribunal concluded that: the investigation was carried out in accordance with the correct procedures; the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; the facts established amounted to misconduct under the staff regulations and rules and that the sanction imposed was not excessive. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s submission that the investigation into his actions should not have been commenced because there was no evidence of harm to the Organization. Pursuant to ST/AI/371/Amend.1, once there is reason to believe that a staff member...

Restructuring: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s position and core responsibilities did not change as a result of the decision to reintegrate the Unit into one. He was to continue to perform the same duties although without the additional task of acting as the supervising officer of staff in the Operations Section of the Unit. Consultation: The Tribunal concluded that since the changes made to the Applicant¡¯s functional and reporting arrangements were not significant and did not alter his substantive position, the Administration was not strictly obliged under section 5(c) of ST/SGB...

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Consolidation of applications: The Tribunal concluded that consolidation would not have any effect on the parties¡¯ rights as the two applications are virtually identical and each party will have the opportunity to have its case fully considered both as to receivability and on the merits albeit in one judgment. Receivability of the classification decision: Noting that Fuentes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT-2010-064 and Fuentes 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-105 confirm that a failure to decide an appeal against classification of a post encumbered by the Applicant is an administrative decision which may be subject to review by the Tribunal...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s filing of an incomplete application met the time limits for filing an application set out in staff rule 11.4(a) and that as the incomplete application was filed in time, there was no requirement for the Applicant to request a suspension or waiver of the deadline.