Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Promulgation of MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15: The Tribunal observed that MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15 is of general application to the extent that it applies to all MONUSCO personnel but it was not expressly issued for the implementation of any specific rules or ST/SGBs. However, it does not meet the requirements of ST/SGB/2009/4. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the lack of promulgation of the AI does not of itself render the impugned decision null and void. Withdrawal of the Applicant¡¯s driving privileges: The Tribunal found that MONUSCO Administrative...

The Tribunal held that the decisions to issue a Notice of Counsel and to require the Applicant to undergo remedial training did not affect his legal rights. The decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction was procedurally flawed because, contrary to the Department of Safety and Security Manual of Instruction on Use of Force Equipment Including Firearms (¡°DSS Weapons MOI¡±), the Chief of the SSS did not state the expected duration of the measure. The Tribunal rescinded the decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction without indicating the expected duration and ordered the...

Performance Notice The Tribunal finds that this Notice was not reflected in the Applicant¡¯s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Notice issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Notice, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant¡¯s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that in her 2011 and 2012 ePAD (performance document), the Applicant had received positive ratings, and that the 2013 ePAD was never finalized. The applicable performance management system (PAMS) requires the finalization of the ePAD in case of non-renewal of appointment for reasons related to performance. Accordingly, since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR had failed to follow its rules with respect to performance evaluation and performance management, including mediation protocols, and, furthermore, the ¡°alternative¡± process followed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR did not provide an equivalent standard of safeguards...

Was the decision based on properly promulgated legal instruments or other issuances?

The primary and binding legal instrument is ST/SGB/2009/10, to be read together with the Guidelines made thereunder. It is not for the decision-makers to operate outside the strict terms of the primary legal instrument by explicit or tacit agreement to adopt a rule of practice or procedure that is not in strict compliance with ST/SGB/2009/10 and its guidance. Above all, those making recommendations or decisions must be guided by the Organization¡¯s policies as reflected in properly promulgated administrative...

The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant¡¯s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the element of the application concerning conversion to permanent appointment was not receivable as the Applicant had not requested management evaluation of this decision. In respect to the receivable elements of the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal. However, the Tribunal found that the decision not to renew his appointment was unlawful, as it was based on a flawed performance management process. In particular, in the Applicant¡¯s first performance cycle, there were significant delays in the implementation of the various...

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

The actions taken by the Chief of the Regional Service Center Entebbe (C/RSCE) towards the Applicant amounted to a clear breach of the authority entrusted to her as C/RSCE. Her conduct fell squarely within the definition contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 which is ¡°the improper use of a position of influence, power or authority against another person¡±. It was reasonably inferred that the C/RSCE either deliberately or negligently ignored the principles governing the role of a manager or supervisor contained in the 2014 Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The Respondent failed to...