Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant¡¯s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The Applicant considers that the disclosure requirements did not apply to him. The Respondent failed to establish that the Applicant was required to file a financial disclosure statement for 2006. The Tribunal rescinds the Applicant¡¯s written reprimand. Any record of it is to be removed from the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision of ESCAP to employ the external candidate on the maternity leave post, prior to advertising the vacancy, for the initial period of 1 February to 31 March 2011 and for one more month subsequently, while the selection process for the maternity leave post was ongoing, was lawful. The application was dismissed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The Organization¡¯s jurisdictional competence does not extend to the physical assault of a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member by a staff member. It was within the province of the Respondent or his agents in this case to investigate the events leading up to the physical assault of Ms. Oduke. Having established that Ms. Oduke had been physically assaulted, the appropriate action for the Administration after that would have been for Ms. Oduke, as a non-staff member, to be advised or even assisted to file charges againstthe Applicant for assault in the appropriate local court. The conclusions of the local court...

All the unresolved questions, the established facts and the Applicant¡¯s failure to bring evidence in order to convince the Tribunal of the alleged extortion scheme against him support an inference that the Applicant had likely engaged in a sexual relationship with V01, a minor. Given all the surrounding circumstances of the charge, investigations and his own actions and explanations, the Applicant has not sufficiently discharged the burden upon him. The wording in paragraphs 3.2 (a) and (b) of ST/SGB/2003/13 is clear. Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct...

The new system consists of a modernization of the system in place and does not change the staff members pre-existing obligation to accurately reflect their working hours. The Applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any persuasive arguments that would result in it to consider that the implementation of the Flex Time System infringed on either his contract of employment or his terms of appointment. The implementation of a practice, which is used to address specific needs of a department, does not become discriminatory solely due to the fact that other departments within the Organization do...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant failed to request a management evaluation of the contested decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s communications with the Human Resources Management Section of the United Nations Office in Vienna in July 2012 did not amount to a request for management evaluation, and even if they were accepted as such a request, it would have been out of time by approximately three months.