The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so within the expressly stipulated timeframe. Where the management evaluation was requested late, the result was as if it were not requested at all.
Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of ¡°supervisor ¡° as per the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON Security and Safety Service (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide ¡°security...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS or any other entity of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as irreceivable.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant¡¯s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant¡¯s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the EOD date as...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Settlement Agreement was properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for its enforcement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that there was no special procedure prescribed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute or Rules of Procedure or even by any of its Practice Directions for an applicant to bring an application for the enforcement of a Settlement Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was bad faith on part of the Respondent in regard to the Settlement Agreement by the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that: a. The MONUSCO Administration exhibited bad faith during the negotiations by not informing the Applicant until after he...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was a case in which the host country was not forthcoming or did not provide reasons which justified the PNG decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that once the Organisation had verbally stated, determined and notified the Applicant that the allegations against her were not considered misconduct, it had a duty as per Hassouna (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/094) not to change the terms and conditions of her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Secretary-General had the power to reassign the Applicant on an exceptional basis and should have done so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that, according to Hassouna, the Organisation could not resort to...
The Respondent complied with the audi alterem partem principle, which ensures that a party adversely affected by an administrative decision has the right to know, the opportunity to comment on, and the ability to answer the case against him or her. The Applicant was well aware of the complaints that were lodged against him, was confronted with each claim and responded thereto, was repeatedly warned about his unprofessional behaviour and performance issues yet failed to heed to these warnings. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract due to poor performance was lawful. The Applicant¡¯s...
