Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...

The Tribunal found that the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯staxes was lawfuland that the Administration was not liable for the delay in processingof the claim.

The Applicant¡¯s own testimony undermined his claim of extenuatingcircumstances.Histestimony conclusively established thatthe Applicantdid not fileclaims for tax reimbursement in a timely manner because he mistakenly believed that he was not requiredto file and pay taxes to the United StatesGovernment uponexpiry of his permanent residence.His error came to light in August 2019, when the IRS placed alienon his bank account to...

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

The challenge against the decision to place the Applicant on a PIP and the outcome of the review of MEU of the contested decisions is not receivable.

The Administration failed to respect the procedural standards expected from the United Nations in proceedings leading to the imposition of a written reprimand. The above-mentioned deficiencies raise doubts about the appearance of impartiality of the investigation and the decision-making process and are thus sufficient to taint the contested decision. Accordingly, the Administration¡¯s decision to issue to the Applicant a written reprimand and...

The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

Whether the contested decision is lawful

Whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements

The Organization¡¯s duty of care towards staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since March 2020, when WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the Organization has ensured that all necessary measures are in place to support the safety and health of all Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ personnel when carrying out the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them.

The nature of the Applicant¡¯s functions may require her on-site presence, as evidenced by...

Whether the Applicant had a right of return A Human Resources Factsheet, issued for Umoja users, provides that at the end of a loan period, the staff member concerned is expected to return to the Secretariat unless he/she resigns his/her Secretariat position to transfer to the receiving organization. Such practice has been clearly confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Iskandar (see Iskandar 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-248). Accordingly, while the Applicant¡¯s lien on his former post may have been surrendered in accordance with the Administration¡¯s decision of 9 September 2009, he retained a return right to OCHA...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.