Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that a witness¡¯ evidence on all matters totally lacked credibility and due to its conflicting nature was at best unreliable. The different versions of the facts were entirely contradictory. In such a situation the Tribunal has no course other than to totally exclude all evidence from the witness as lacking any probative value. The testimony presented and heard by the Tribunal does not prove, at the required standard, that the charge of collusion in fraud or gross negligence against the Applicant was made out. The Respondent had the burden of proof, which he did not discharge...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...

The issue of disclosing an investigation report is not new. It was, in fact, considered by this Tribunal in its judgments Adorma Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/205 and Haydar Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/201 as well as by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in judgment Ivanov 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-519. In the latter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT entered into consideration of the non-disclosure of an investigation report despite the fact that the Secretary-General had questioned the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction over such a decision. The Organisation¡¯s obligations as stipulated in ST/SGB/2008/5 are an integral part of a staff member¡¯s contractual rights. They include the obligations of the Organisation and...

The ST/AI stipulates a condition attached to the entitlement of the payment of the balance of the relocation grant, namely that the payment of the balance of the relocation grant shall be made only when an extension of the assignment occurs at least six months prior to the expected end of the assignment at the duty station. The extension having occurred approximately three months before the end of the assignment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant is not entitled to the balance. The fact that the Applicant submits that nobody advised him of this condition in January 2018, six months prior to the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that a plain reading of staff regulation 2.1 makes it clear that the Administration is obliged to provide a classification not only for the staff members but also for the posts that they are encumbering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that nowhere in Personnel Directive/1/94 it is as much as contemplated that a staff member at the GS-level, even on a short-term temporary appointment as the Applicant, could be hired against an unclassified post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the administrative decision under review is clearly the decision by which the Applicant was recruited against an unclassified post when he was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that on the date of the issuance of the disciplinary measure, as well as on the date when it was received by the Applicant, she remained subject to the Staff Regulations and Rules, which allow for the imposition of disciplinary measures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the facts of the case demonstrate that the Applicant¡¯s actions were undertaken in a conflict of interest in violation of staff regulation 1.2(m). The actions also demonstrate lack of integrity in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b), which requires staff members to ¡°[¡­] uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and...

The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not know about the Applicant¡¯s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant¡¯s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the principal legal issue arising for consideration in the case was whether the Applicant¡¯s qualifications met the requirement of a recognized first level university degree as required by the job opening she was selected for. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements for positions at the P-2 level and was not eligible to be considered for a one-time amnesty for staff members under section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5. The Tribunal held that the Applicant did not demonstrate unfairness, unjustness, lack of transparency or inappropriate motive in...