Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Waiver of management evaluation deadline: The Tribunal held that the Respondent effectively waived the deadline for management evaluation and gave the Applicant the discretionary authority to decide when to litigate her matter by engaging her on the merits of her claims, even though her request for management evaluation was approximately 6 weeks late, and by suspending her request for management evaluation ¡°until further notice¡± with an undertaking that she could request for resumption of the formal process ¡°at any stage in the future¡±, should the issue not be resolved to her satisfaction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that would suggest that the Chief, FASB, did not follow any of the applicable rules in denying the Applicant¡¯s request in reliance upon MSD¡¯s recommendation. The fact that the Applicant had not been provided with a reason as to why the treating physicians opinions were not accepted is not at issue in the present case and does not of itself impugn the integrity of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s reliance on MSD¡¯s recommendation was not improper nor was it an impermissible option for the manager to take within the ambit of his responsibilities.The...

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent¡¯s case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant¡¯s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant¡¯s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...

Administrative decisions: What an administrative decision is or is not depends on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision has been made and the consequences of the decision, which dispels any notion that administrative decisions can be placed in any kind of legal strait jacket. Performance evaluation: Notwithstanding the bar to rebutting successful performance ratings in section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5, when a contested administrative decision is alleged to be in violation of the legal issuances of the Organization, it is actionable before the Tribunal in so far...

Following inter partes discussions pursuant to case management directions by the Tribunal, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having waited for approximately one year and a half to raise claims regarding the alleged lack of access to the United Nations cafeteria facilities, the Applicant acquiesced to the arrangements put in place by the Respondent in view of the renovation-related requirements. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that, in view of the CMP-related requirements that necessitated the move to the Madison Building, the Respondent put in place alternative measures that were neither unreasonable nor unfair. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

Pleadings - A defence to a claim must say which of the allegations in the particulars of claim are admitted, which are denied and which allegations the defendant is unable to admit or deny, but requires the claimant to prove. Every allegation made in a claim should be dealt with in the defence. Where an allegation is denied, this normally implies that the defendant intends to put up a positive case to the contrary. Where the defendant denies an allegation, he must state his reasons for doing so; and if heintends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...

With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...