Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

Receivability The Tribunal found the application receivable ratione temporis. Merits The Tribunal considered that while the Administration has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its staff members in the management of the social security system and relevant entitlements, the system is based on certification and reporting, with the main responsibility for providing the Administration with the required medical certificates and reports lying on the staff member. Staff members must strictly comply with the legal requirements and provide complete material that contains sufficient precision, including the...

With the successful mediation process and subsequent withdrawal of this case, the case is closed.

For an application to be receivable pursuant to arts. 2 and 3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, an Applicant has to contest an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her contract of employment or terms of appointment.; At the time the Applicant applied for the contested post as well as at the time of the contested decision (non-selection), he was no longer a staff member. While he is a former staff member, the decision not to select him for the advertised post advertised was not linked to his (previous) contract of employment or terms of appointment with the United Nations...

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...

Due to successful inter partes settlement negotiations and the subsequent withdrawal of this case, the case is closed.

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...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that a staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias or discrimination. A candidate has no right to a promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that ¡®Priority consideration¡¯ cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed or receive what one is considered in priority for and that to hold otherwise would compromise the highest standards of efficiency, competency, and integrity required in selecting the best candidate for staff positions under Article 101 of the Charter. The Tribunal...