Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The Tribunal dealt with the notion of ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± in the light of the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Appeals Tribunal. It reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. The Tribunal considered whether it could find any exceptional circumstances, as alleged by the Applicant that could justify a waiver of the receivability requirements, pursuant to staff rule 111.2 (f) of ST/SGB/1999/5 of 3 June 1999. Initially the Applicant submitted before the JAB that the fact that...

Inexplicably, the JAB in its report sua sponte addressed, as a formal issue before it, the handling of a privileged and confidential letter (¡°Confidential Letter¡±) that the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had sent to the Under-Secretary-General for OIOS (¡°USG¡±) regarding the pending JAB litigation. The JAB refused the Applicant¡¯s non-selection claim, but found that the Respondent owed the Applicant an apology for forwarding the Confidential Letter to some staff members. The Respondent subsequently affirmed the non-selection decision, but rejected the issuance of an apology regarding the distribution of...

The Tribunal finds that the decision to summarily dismiss the applicant is not tainted by any irregularity, that the facts are established, that they amount to misconduct and that the sanction of summary dismissal is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT jurisdiction: The Tribunal has no power to compel a person external to the Organization to appear before it as a witness. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine whether the procedure followed was regular, whether the facts in question are established, whether...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reiterated that, as it had held in Adorna Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/012, the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the propriety of the letter of reprimand were not receivable and this case was limited to the following contested decisions: (i) the refusal to allow the Applicant access to the investigation report; (ii) the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s legal expenses; and (iii) the refusal to issue internal and public announcements acknowledging his exoneration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request for the investigation report was reasonable and that the obligations of good faith and fair dealing required...

The main issue was whether time taken off during part of the workday should be counted towards the ¡°scheduled workday¡± and actual work (¡°hours of work¡±) requirements when calculating compensatory time off or additional payment for overtime. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that time spent on annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off is not included in the actual work time, but is counted towards the scheduled workday. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that DGACM¡¯s application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules was correct and that the Applicants failed to explain how the allegedly unlawful amendments to DGACM¡¯s policy and...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.

This Application is not receivable and is additionally frivolous and vexatious.

The early termination of his contract was not based on a proper or lawful evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance. In the absence of a comprehensive and fair performance evaluation done at the time, the reasons given by the Respondent cannot be regarded as cogent or reliable because the Applicant did not have an opportunity to refute, answer or rebut them. They therefore represent just one side of the story and, however strongly felt by the Respondent, are not a reliable basis for a lawful termination of the contract before its expiry date. This is not a question of improper motivation...

Exceptional circumstances: Circumstances beyond the control of the applicant that prevented him/her from submitting an appeal in time.