Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.

The investigation against the Applicant lacked integrity and credibility. The investigator was incompetent, exhibited bias and lacked objectivity and fairness. The Investigator¡¯s note-taker was not only allowed to conduct part of the investigation by solely administering questions to two witnesses, she was also allowed the liberty of expressing her views on how some evidence she had elicited from a witness should not change impressions earlier formed. The investigation report was biased, unreliable and unfair. The characterisation of certain facts was done in a manner intended to draw only...

Reasons for non-renewal: While the Administration is not bound to provide a staff member with the reasons for the non-renewal of his or her appointment, when the staff member contests before the Tribunal the legality of the non-renewal decision, holding that the motives behind were unlawful, the Administration must communicate to the Tribunal such motives and show they were real.

The main legal issues in this case are whether the Applicant and the Organization had entered into a contract and whether the Applicant is entitled to access to the system of justice of the United Nations. The Tribunal found that no binding contract of employment was concluded by the Applicant and the Organization. The Applicant was not a staff member at the time the decision was made not to select her for the vacancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this case. Outcome: The application was rejected.

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Definition of harassment: Disagreements on work performance and other work-related issues are per se not excluded from the definition of harassment, and thus from the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5. Requirements to initiate an investigation and standard in appraising them: Section 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5 provides for two general criteria for the purpose of launching a fact-finding investigation: (1) that the formal...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preparatory measures such as the decision not to prepare a work plan for the purpose of appraising a staff member¡¯s performance 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. Rebuttal procedure: It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that a staff member may not challenge before the Tribunal his/her performance rating unless he/she has previously initiated the rebuttal process provided for in this administrative instruction.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant¡¯s case rests firmly at her own door.

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

Administrative decision: A decision imposing to a staff member an obligation to report to work may not be said to be purely preparatory in nature, as it has effects on his or her terms of appointment. As such, it is a decision open to appeal before the Tribunal. Interim measures: The Tribunal may only grant suspension of action on a decision as an interim measure under articles 10.2 of the Statute and 14 of the Rules of procedure during the proceedings of a case, that is, when there is an application against the same decision pending before it. Management evaluation/receivability of suspension...