The case was referred to the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS¡±).
Upon confirmation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS that the referral was accepted as per para. 7 of Practice Direction No. 3 (Mediation), the proceedings would be suspended for 30 calendar days.
The Applicant claims that the Administration¡¯s indication that she will only be entitled to be considered for her long service step increment in August 2028, instead of August 2026, contravenes the terms of the settlement agreement signed previously. The issues the Tribunal considered for the purpose of receivability were, therefore, whether the subject matter of the application was one of the terms of the Agreement and whether the Agreement had been implemented or not.
In the Tribunal¡¯s view, the record did not allow to conclude that the deferment of eligibility for increment was a matter...
The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant¡¯s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the settlement...
The Appellant filed a notice of withdrawal pursuant to the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT issued Order No. 188 (2014) noting the withdrawal and ordering the Registrar to close the case.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to upset the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues of...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/178 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the nature of the contested decision before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not entirely clear. On the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that the Settlement Agreement was imposed upon him by duress and threats, and therefore must fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact in the decision and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on this point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to deal with the Appellant¡¯s claim of harassment and discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process entitlement him to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his...
