Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Trinunal found that the Applicant¡¯s contest to the decision of 19 July 2021 to place him on ALWP was time-barred as the Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision within the stipulated deadline. The Tribunal found that the subsquent decisions to extend the Applicant¡¯s placement on ALWP were lawful.

The Tribunal found that Applicant¡¯s persistent refusal to complete the 2018/2019 e-PAS evaluations for staff members for whom the Applicant was the First Reporting Officer ("FRO") and engage with KJ constituted misconduct. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was lawfully terminated under staff regulation 9.3(a)(i) following the termination of MINUSMA¡¯s mandate. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that the Administration unlawfully terminated his appointment early because of his health. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s reliance on ST/AI/2019 and ST/AI/1999/16 was misguided since his appointment was not terminated on health grounds.

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant¡¯s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...

The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...

Receivability

The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.

First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.

Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...

Applicant¡¯s request for anonymization

The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the¡°harm this case has caused¡± him and the ¡°sensitive information¡± referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s motion was denied.

Receivability

The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and the reasons provided by the Respondent for not selecting the Applicant and concluded that based on the information provided by the Applicant, the Respondent¡¯s decision not to select him cannot be faulted as being unfair. The Applicant did not have the CIPS level 2 certification that was a mandatory requirement for the position, and he did not prove that he had two years of progressive experience in procurement management.

Furthermore, the Applicant¡¯s suggestion in his submissions that the selection panel ought not to have relied only on his...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.

Merits

The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...