Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

Administration¡¯s discretion in constituting interview panels for temporary appointments - It is within the discretion of the Administration as to how the interview panel for a temporary position is constituted as long as the composition of the said panel is consistent with the requirements of ST/AI/201/4/Rev. 1.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the CISS post under the framework established by staff rule 9.6(e). He, therefore, lost a fair chance of being selected for the CISS post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the decision not to select the Applicant was vitiated by the arbitrary and inconsistent application of the requirement of ¡°Headquarters experience¡±. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has already mitigated his losses for some part of the relevant period and received compensation for the rest of the lost earnings as part of Lemonnier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/186...

Findings of fact by the Appeals Tribunal ¨C As a matter of general principle, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to question a finding of fact or a ruling on the law as set down by the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ¨C A staff member who raises a credible claim which needs to be tested ought not to be shut out at a preliminary stage. There is a difference between a claim that is clearly not receivable because it does not challenge an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1 and a claim which on the face of it raises an apparently credible challenge that a decision of general...

Decisions of the General-Assembly - A decision of the General Assembly is binding on the Secretary-General who has a duty to implement it. The Applicant lacks the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of her appointment in so far as it is properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish it. Interpretation of section 3.7 (b) of ST/AI/2013/4 - Section 3.7 (b) does not envisage a situation of post abolishment. The said section contemplates a situation where the post formerly encumbered by a former or retired staff member continues to exist and the separated staff...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

The Tribunal granted the application, and the contested decision was rescinded and SLWP request remanded for the ASG/OHRM¡¯s consideration within 30 days.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the DM post under the framework established by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Tribunal finds that, had the Applicant been afforded proper consideration for the DM post as a displaced permanent staff member, he would have had fifty per cent chance of being selected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the selection process was tainted by bias against the Applicant. Having considered relevant factors¡ªnamely, that (i) the Applicant lost a fifty per cent chance of being selected...

The Applicant, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remanded the Applicant¡¯s request to the Secretary-General for consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT directed that, within one month of the date of this judgment, the Applicant shall submit any further documentation to the MSD New York that he wishes to be taken into consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further ordered that, within 90 calendar days of the date of this Judgment, the Respondent, through a properly designated office, shall render a decision on the Applicant¡¯s request.