Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The right of the Applicant to a correct level of classification of the post and a fair level of pay derives from the effective functions performed in the years, always the same at least from 2018, functions which - according to the acknowledgement of the Administration itself - correspond to the FS-5 level.

The Applicant is entitled to a compensation calculated as the difference in salary, allowances, and other entitlements between the FS-5 level and the FS-4 level, for the period November 2018 to September 2022, plus interest at the rate correspondent to the rate of inflation, including the...

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. for having, on 21 May 2020, while in a United Nations vehicle clearly visible from a public street in Tel Aviv, Israel, held a female individual closely to his body while she was seated on his lap facing him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner; these events were captured in an 18-second video-clip, which was widely disseminated, bringing the Organization into disrepute (count one);

b. for failure to cooperate with the OIOS investigations by refusing to provide OIOS with the contact details of a material witness...

The Applicant was charged with two different counts of accusations:

a. Permitting a female individual (¡°F01¡±), who was not a United Nations personnel and who did not receive prior authorization for United Nations transport, to be transported in the vehicle, enabling the behaviour of Mr. Antoine, the rear passenger of the United Nations vehicle, who held F01 closely to his body while she was seated on top of him and gyrating in a sexually suggestive manner, while Mr. Antoine held F01 with his hand on her buttock and while he pulled her genital area closer to his crotch. These events...

Decisions of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.

The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable nor unlawful to require the Applicant to work from the office for two days per week. The Administration, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in declining the Applicant¡¯s request to work from home for the entire work week. The Tribunal took note that the Applicant had been able to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 to December 2022 and that there was an operational need for the Applicant to return to work. The Director reasonably, weighed this operational fact against allowing the Applicant to telecommute for the entire...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the application filed on 2 March 2022 via email was essentially the same as that filed on 16 April 2022 via the eFiling portal. Consequently, in line with Practice Direction No. 4, para. 11, the Tribunal found that the present application was receivable.

Merits

In the present case, this Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established according to the applicable standard.

The Tribunal examined the evidence on...

The issue at stake in the case at hand is whether the Applicant has a legitimate interest in maintaining current legal proceedings.The evidence on record shows that the Respondent rescinded the contested decision on 23 March 2023. The Applicant acknowledged this in her rejoinder but considers that her grievances are not resolved because she ¡°also requested consideration for new assignments and a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter¡±.However, the 23 March 2023 letter, which clearly rescinded the contested decision, amounts to a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter. It follows that the...

To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± for the 2020-2021 cycle.

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations...

The Tribunal must ensure that there is an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment or his or her contract of employment, as provided for in art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Such decision must be unilaterally taken by the Administration, be directed to the staff member, and have direct legal consequences for the staff member.

Since the Applicant¡¯s re-employment and new appointment occurred after 1 July 2007, his eligibility to participate in ASHI is contingent on his fulfilling the criteria laid out in sec. 2.1(a)(ii) of ST/AI/2007/3. Specifically, he is required to have been a participant in a contributory health insurance plan of the United Nations for a minimum of ten years.