Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

Promulgation of MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15: The Tribunal observed that MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15 is of general application to the extent that it applies to all MONUSCO personnel but it was not expressly issued for the implementation of any specific rules or ST/SGBs. However, it does not meet the requirements of ST/SGB/2009/4. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the lack of promulgation of the AI does not of itself render the impugned decision null and void. Withdrawal of the Applicant¡¯s driving privileges: The Tribunal found that MONUSCO Administrative...

Receivability - At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor does the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. He therefore has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the Respondent before this Tribunal..

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 Tribunal found that by filing her request for management evaluation only on 21 April 2015, the Applicant failed to respect the 60 day time limit under staff rule 11.2(c), which started to run as of 5 January 2015, the day of her signature of the letter of appointment. Subsequent responses from OHRM in response to queries from the Applicant were merely confirmative decisions of the original decision of 5 January 2015. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Performance Notice The Tribunal finds that this Notice was not reflected in the Applicant¡¯s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Notice issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Notice, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant¡¯s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The Tribunal found the Applicant's reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General's discretion and dismissed the application. Reassignment of the Applicant: The Tribunal found that the relocation of the Applicant to Kuwait was prompted by administrative and humanitarian reasons based on space constraints in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI in order to accommodate more humanitarian staff who were dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Secretary-General's exercise of discretion was not tainted by any improper motives. Payment of DSA, hardship and mobility...