Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Respondent conceded that the proper procedure in the assessment of the Applicant¡¯s complaint was not followed because she was not interviewed by OIAI as required by section 5.14 of CF/EXD/2012-007. The Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in this case not only constitutes a serious breach of the applicable framework but it also violates the Applicant¡¯s due process rights as a complainant. The complainant¡¯s interview is a mandatory and essential step in the preliminary assessment of the complaint as it prompts the staff member to clarify the allegations, to ensure all available...

The selection process is still ongoing. It has therefore not yet yielded a final reviewable administrative decision having an impact on the legal order. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Administration held sufficient consultations with staff on the restructuring of WMO Secretariat by: announcing the restructuring sufficiently in advance, holding meetings with staff representatives and setting up a consultation mechanism to hear staff concerns. The Administration had the Applicant, a permanent appointment holder whose post was abolished, undergo a pre-screening interview for a vacant post along with all the other pre-selected candidates. In so doing, the Administration failed to afford the Applicant priority non-competitive consideration. The Tribunal ordered the...

In plain English, the term ¡°net base salary¡±, does not have any meaning on its own, and no authoritative definition is found in the relevant legal framework or the employment contract. The purpose of post adjustment is to ensure equity in purchasing power of staff members across duty stations. Net base salary represents the minimum, or floor remuneration payable, is defined as gross base salary minus staff assessment, and does not include post adjustment.

The deadline for the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant¡¯s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

The Tribunal has the power to interpret and identify the ¡°contested administrative decision¡± at stake, even if the party or parties have failed to do so. The Applicant was placed on SLWOP following her expulsion from Pakistan, the host country, due to her failure to timely submit the required documents for the renewal of her accreditation card. The Applicant, as an international staff member, should have known that a valid visa and accreditation card were conditions sine qua non for her to stay in Pakistan and be able to perform her professional duties. Since these conditions were not met and...

The decision to replace the Applicant as Departmental Focal Point for Women is reviewable because it affects her rights as a staff member under ST/SGB/2008/12. The Applicant's role as Departmental Focal Point for Women is not a staff representative. The Respondent did not show a conflict of interest between the Applicant¡¯s role as Departmental Focal Point for Women and her membership of the OHCHR Staff Committee. The High Commissioner had no authority under ST/SGB/2008/12 to remove the Applicant from her functions prior to the expiry of her mandate. Reinstatement of the Applicant was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

As the remedy requested in the application had already been obtained, the Tribunal rejects the application as moot.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, including special consideration as an internal candidate on an abolished post but that the Applicant has failed to show that she was denied a fair chance during the selection process. Accordingly, the Tribunal DECIDES that the application is rejected in its entirety.