Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Judicial review of disciplinary cases: It was not required or expected of the staff members under the former system of justice to file separate appeals regarding each intermittent stage of the disciplinary process. It is impossible to artificially split the disciplinary process into separate stages after its completion and file separate appeals with the Tribunal with respect to each stage, expecting that they would be considered piece-meal. Moreover, even if that were possible, the Applicant would have been required to submit separate appeals to the JDC or file separate requests for...

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant¡¯s contract ended one day after the issuance of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent¡¯s failure to properly ensure that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended, namely the loss of career prospects after having served with the...

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant¡¯s contract ended one day after the issuance of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent¡¯s failure to properly ensure that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended, namely the loss of career prospects after having served with the...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary steps such as the choice of a legal basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal or the capacity in which a reporting officer signs off on a performance appraisal can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

Tribunal¡¯s review of eligibility for benefits: The Secretary-General has no discretion to grant or deny a benefit provided for in the Staff Regulations and Rules and is bound, in this respect, by the applicable rules. Accordingly, when the matter before the Tribunal concerns the refusal to grant a benefit, the Tribunal may only examine whether the staff member was eligible for, or entitled to, such benefit, without taking into account the grounds for refusal provided by the Administration. The fact that other staff members in the same situation may have been granted the disputed benefit is...

As consistently held by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Time limits prescribed for administrative review (and management evaluation under the new system), which could be waived under the previous system, cannot be waived under article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in article 8.3.

Obligation to take action under ST/SGB/2008/5: The Administration¡¯s obligation to take prompt and concrete action under section 5.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5 is not limited to formal complaints or reports but also extends to ¡°allegations¡± of prohibited conduct. Scope of application of ST/SGB/2008/5: Comments made in the context of a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal could in some circumstances fall under ST/SGB/2008/5. For example, harsh criticism unsupported by examples or the use of offensive language could constitute improper conduct that might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause...

This is particularly the case in employment within the United Nations which is highly valued. Once out of the system the prospect of returning to a comparable post within the United Nations is significantly reduced. The damage to career opportunities and the consequential effect on one¡¯s life chances cannot adequately be compensated by money. Although the Applicant¡¯s suspension of action did not specify a date until which the requested suspension of action should be applied, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT granted it but limited it in time, per art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal, to the...

Challenging the valididty of a medical certificate: When a staff member submits a medical certificate to justify his or her absence or the failure to fulfill a professional obligation, and where the Administration questions the validity of the medical certificate, it must have the staff member examined by the Organization¡¯s medical service or, in the event of further dispute, by a medical commission.Outcome: Judgment in favour of applicant in full (both financial compensation and rescission ordered)