Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

According to the Organization¡¯s broad discretion to reassign its employees to different functions, provided that the new position is in line with the grade, qualifications and professional experience, the Applicant could have been redeployed in principle. As legally required prior consultations with staff representatives were not held and - in addition - the agency showed lack of good faith by informing the Applicant only by ¡®all staff e-mail¡¯, procedural flaws vitiated the contested decision. Regardless of its significance, non-compliance with legal provisions specified in art. 2.1 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...

Outcome: The respondent is to pay interest from the date the payment of the relocation grant became due, namely 4 May 2008, and until payment at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

The Board of Examiners decided that the applicant did not satisfy the educational requirement. The applicant believed that she was qualified because she had obtained a vocational training from the Centre d¡¯Ecriture et de Communication (¡°the Centre¡±), and that supportive remarks made about this by her supervisor and work colleagues confirmed her belief. The Centre was not a university or equivalent institution in the French educational system, and the applicant had not ¡°five years of continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat by 31 December 1989¡±. These prerequisites did not...

In this case the initial inquiry was inadequate and affected by bias. Outcome: Applicant awarded USD20,000 for breach of contractual right. Parties directed to make submissions as to whether ST/AI/371 is still operative or has been implicitly appealed by ST/SGB/2009/7. Further hearing to decide as to whether USG¡¯s conduct should be referred to the SG for possible action to enforce accountability pursuant to art 10.8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute.

Having examined the documents and having heard the evidence from the PCO of the selection panel, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no material irregularity in that all relevant procedures and guidelines were followed. The JAB panel¡¯s examination of the facts is not tainted by procedural error or bias. The application before this Tribunal fails and is dismissed.

The filling of the Post with the ultimately-successful candidate cannot be characterized as a ¡°transfer¡±, be it lateral or not. The ultimately-successful candidate was therefore rather selected for the Post. Simply stated, the Post did not qualify as a lateral transfer. The Respndent employed the wrong procedure. The Applicants, although ranked behind the initially-successful candidate, were also ¡°suitable¡± candidates for the Post. The Tribunal finds that the selection exercise for the initially-selected candidate was improper. The Applicants having been deemed by the Tribunal as suitable...

The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB¡¯s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...

The Tribunal examined whether the two-year limitation for the recovery of the overpayment as stated in ST/AI/2009/1 applied to the case at hand. While it was undisputed that the overpayment resulted from an error on the part of the Organization, the Tribunal found that the Applicant could not seriously claim that she was unaware or that she could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the overpayment, and it therefore concluded that the two- year limitation could not apply to her.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s rights to defence had been breached during the disciplinary procedure because the investigation report and all its attachments had not been shared with him. It concluded however that such a procedural flaw did not affect the established facts, since the Applicant had admitted to them, and did not warrant the rescission of the contested decision, since the established facts amounted to misconduct. The Tribunal nevertheless rescinded the summary dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate to the established facts. It ordered: (i) the reinstatement...