Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the United Nations Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that beyond reporting the possible prohibited conduct concerning non-compliance with the United Nations financial rules and regulations to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the staff member had no further interest in law in the conduct of the investigation or its outcome. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there was no basis for his assertion that OIOS had declined to conduct an investigation into his report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding the application concerning this decision not receivable.

Regarding the staff member¡¯s complaint of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the non-selection decision was superseded and rendered moot by the Administration's subsequent rescission of the decision, which ended the selection process without anyone being selected for the position. It concluded that, from that moment, the non-selection decision ceased to have any legal effect and was no longer a live issue on which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had jurisdiction to pass judgment on.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further affirmed that it was entirely within the Administration¡¯s authority to rescind the non-selection decision given the procedural irregularities...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the creation of the position of Deputy Special Representative (DSR), undertaken as part of the implementation of the recommendations to restructure the oPt Office, constituted an administrative decision of a general nature. It further concluded that although the newly established ToR for the DSR position transferred to the incumbent some duties and responsibilities that were previously part of the staff member¡¯s Terms of Reference (ToR), this reallocation alone was insufficient to conclude that the creation of the position of DSR produced direct legal consequences for the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...