Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this SOA in light of the fact that the Applicant had received a response to his request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Thus, the contested administrative decision was no longer the subject of an ongoing management evaluation as required under art. 2 of the Statute.
The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The 蘑菇视频DT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.
The events leading up to the Applicant’s separation from service do not amount to a termination. The Applicant was in fact wrongly placed on Special Leave With Full Pay from 21 May 2004 to 31 December 2004. 蘑菇视频DP guidelines on Results and Competency Assessment do not confer any power on the Resident Representative to place a staff member on special leave with full pay for unsatisfactory performance as was done by the RR in this case. Not only was the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP illegal, it was a disguised disciplinary measure designed to humiliate and embarrass the Applicant to the...
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to provide reasons why the decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment was lawful. The Tribunal therefore, concluded that based on the available evidence, the contested decision was motivated by countervailing circumstances and was thus prima facie unlawful. With regard to urgency, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had acted prudently by filing her application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the requirement for urgency had been satisfied by the...
The Applicant’s post was one of 45 posts earmarked in November 2007 for abolition by December 2008. It is not contested that the 45 posts for abolition which included the Applicant’s post were extended on GTA funding through June 2011. In the present Application on the merits, the Applicant needs to prove, at least on the balance of probabilities, that the Retention Panel was unfair in its evaluation of him and was discriminatory. Not only did he fail in his earlier suspension of action application to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged...
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant’s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...
Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.
The Applicant applied twice for the position of Director of Investigations, Office of Internal Oversight Services (“OIOS”) (“the Post”) at the D-2 level. The Post was first advertised in a vacancy announcement in 2008 and again in 2009. A selection panel set up by OIOS recommended him as the only qualified candidate for the Post in each instance. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Special Review Group (“SRG”) and, as a result, no appointment was made to the Post. A third vacancy announcement was issued, for which the Applicant did not apply. The Applicant submits that he...
The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (“CMP”), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants’ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.
Renewal of fixed-term appointments: A decision to extend the fixed-term appointment of a staff member for a short period of time contains in fact two decisions, on the hand a decision to extend, on the other, a decision to set a date beyond which the staff member’s appointment will not be extended. Receivability of application against a renewal decision: It follows from staff rule 4.13(c) that when the fixed-term appointment of a staff member expires, that staff member has no right to renewal. Accordingly, a decision to extend a fixed-term appointment, even for a short period of time, is not a...
