Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed, however, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements. Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates¡¯ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT therefore held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that he had received ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for two performance cycles, and ¡°does not meet expectations¡± for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima¡¯s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless ¡°equivocal¡± (unclear/vague), ¡°purely circumstantial¡± and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

With regard to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, nor any finding by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...