Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application is partly non-receivable and, is rejected on the merits. The Applicant¡¯s objection to General Assembly¡¯s decision to restructure the D-1 level position and to submit the selection of the Secretary of the Board to a competitive process by the Succession Planning Committee is not reviewable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded full and fair consideration and the non-selection decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the USG/DMSPC lawfully assigned the Applicant to a suitable position in the Secretariat in order to retain his employment at the D...

The Applicant contests his non-selection and being found not suitable for the position advertised under JO 18186. He identified as the contested decision the Management Evaluation Unit's response dated 24 March 2021. However, a management evaluation response is not a judicially reviewable administrative decision. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae. The above notwithstanding, the Tribunal recalls that it falls under its competence ¡°to individualize and define the administrative decision impugned by a party and identify what is in fact being contested and so, subject...

Once approved by the General Assembly, the decision to downgrade a post is placed outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. There can be no issue of restoring this position and the Applicant as its incumbent. The only question that could be entertained by the Tribunal is whether, in proposing the budget, the administration acted lawfully, or, as it is alleged, engaged in a conspiracy against the Applicant to mislead the General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General¡¯s recommendation to downgrade one of the P-4 posts was lawful. The Tribunal was satisfied that the downgrading of...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s complaints about lack of due process were without merit. The Applicant did not establish that the Respondent failed to afford him due process in the investigation and disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal recalled that the Applicant was sanctioned for: (i) Misleading the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s Global Fleet Management (¡°GFM¡±) regarding the extent of the damage to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s vehicle;...

The Tribunal reviewed the application and found it not receivable. The Applicant indicated in his application that while he was initially offered a separation indemnity of 12 months¡¯ net base salary, this amount was later reduced to three months¡¯ net base salary in a separation agreement dated 16 March 2021. According to the information on record, the Chief Human Resources Office, Pakistan Country Office, verbally informed the Applicant of the contested decision on 11 March 2021. Therefore, as per staff rule 11.2 (c), the Applicant had until 10 May 2021 to request management evaluation. Even...

There is no evidence of collusion or bias against the Applicant. On the contrary, several congruent testimonies corroborated the complainants¡¯ statements and confirmed the allegations of bullying and harassment against the Applicant. The Applicant failed to substantiate his arguments against the complaint and the complainants. The facts are established by a preponderance of evidence and constitute misconduct.
Bearing in mind the nature of the facts attributed to the Applicant, it is not unreasonable that he be obliged to attend mandatory training to improve his managerial and communication¡¯s...

Scope of judicial review In a remanded case, such as the instant one, the Applicant may not expand the scope of claims for remedies contained in her original application and, as such, the Tribunal will not consider her new claims or arguments unless they are essentially related to her original claim in the application. Whether and to what extent the Applicant is entitled to remedies The Appeals Tribunal found in Banaj 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1202 (see para. 1) that the temporary removal from the Applicant, and reassignment to others, of certain of her functions as Head of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC in Albania, was an unlawful...

The Tribunal found that there were several reasons why the application was not receivable: the impugned decision was merely a prefatory act , moreover, as such, it was sub judice in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2022/6. However, on a purely formal plane, the application had been filed out of time.

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenged a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation.

The allegations in the Applicant¡¯s complaint squarely [fell] in the realm of workplace disagreements about the normal exercise of managerial authority. Section 1.1 of ST/SGB/2019/8 states that ¡°[d]isagreement on work performance or on other work-related issues is normally not considered prohibited conduct and is not dealt with under the provisions of the present bulletin but in the context of performance management¡±. The responsible official¡¯s conclusion that it was unlikely that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case (section 5.5...