Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant¡¯s rights were respected in compliance with ST/AI/371. The Applicant failed to establish any irregularities in the procedure followed to impose the disciplinary measure on him. It was clear from the investigation that there were several irregularities in the supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. These irregularities were sufficiently disturbing to strongly suggest that the said invoices were falsified. The facts on the basis of which the Applicant was sanctioned were established. The Applicant¡¯s actions constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of the...

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The Applicant was not qualified to address Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his right to participate as a candidate for leadership in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU through a free and fair election process and his right to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought ¡°an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the election results are not...

Pleadings - A defence to a claim must say which of the allegations in the particulars of claim are admitted, which are denied and which allegations the defendant is unable to admit or deny, but requires the claimant to prove. Every allegation made in a claim should be dealt with in the defence. Where an allegation is denied, this normally implies that the defendant intends to put up a positive case to the contrary. Where the defendant denies an allegation, he must state his reasons for doing so; and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he...

Any decision issued by the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims( ABCC) will be a new administrative decision which will supersede the one contested in the present case and which will be subject to this Tribunal¡¯s authority upon the filing of an application by either of the concerned parties.

Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope...