The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant had been working with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON as an independent contractor, the Tribunal held that he was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON and as such, he has no standing to come before the Tribunal.
ReceivabilityThe placement of a staff member on administrative leave is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. It is an administrative decision for the purposes of art. 8.1 (c) of the Statute and within the well settled meaning of an administrative action as laid down in Andronov. The Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to determine the validity of an administrative decision unless it has been first referred to the Management Evaluation Unit pursuant to art.11.2 of the Staff Rules. In the absence of management evaluation of the decision to place the Applicant on administrative leave...
The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant¡¯s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...
Receivability - ST/SGB/2008/5 provides comprehensive procedures, both informal and formal, to a person who alleges that he or she is a victim of prohibited conduct. Although the Applicant complained that the impugned decisions amounted to an abuse of authority, he did not invoke the procedures set up to address such allegations. Accordingly there is no decision made pursuant to the ST/SGB for the Tribunal to review.
The Tribunal ruled that the transfer within the recipient organization does not fall within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction and that, hence, the application was irreceivable ratione materiae in this respect. Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF's alleged failure to intervene to prevent the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, while conceding that the Organization has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its employees, the Tribunal found that such duty had not been breached in this case, since the Applicant informed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF of her reassignment only a few days before she ceased being a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF staff member following her inter-organization...
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal held that in matters relating to Appendix D of the Staff Rules it has jurisdiction to determine: (i) whether the ABCC correctly followed the procedure applicable to medical claims; (ii) whether it properly directed its mind to the relevant issues; and (iii) whether the evidence on which it based its determination was adequate or flawed. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to make any such assessment and to substitute its own evaluation for the one reached by an expert body like the ABCC. Request for reconsideration: The Tribunal found that...
The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent¡¯s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant¡¯s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not timely submit his request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to identify in clear and precise terms specific administrative decision(s), actions or omissions, including their dates. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the application was not receivable, ratione materiae.
The Applicant contests OSLA's decisions of 5 November 2013 not to represent him in two of the cases he had at the time pending at the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. It rejected the application on the merits, on the grounds that the decisions constituted a legal exercise of discretion on the part of OSLA, which had provided the Applicant with extensive legal assistance, had carefully considered all the issues and gave valid reasons on why it would not represent the Applicant. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that OSLA...
