Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to take into account the Applicant¡¯s recent disciplinary record was not a new disciplinary sanction but an exercise of discretion with regard to a new and separate discretionary administrative process. The contested decision did not amount to unequal or unfair treatment of the Applicant as compared to staff members with existing permanent appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration considered the Applicant eligible for consideration for conversion, but determined that he was not suitable for conversion in view of the recent disciplinary sanction...

The Tribunal found that the decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was a reasonable exercise of discretion and the Administration¡¯s reasons for the decision were acceptable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had had a break in service which disrupted the eligibility requirement of five years¡¯ continuous service with the Organization. Eligibility requirements: Whether a staff member is eligible for consideration has to be assessed against clear and objective criteria, which is not open to discretion. Break-in Service: In the context of the United Nations, a break in service consists of a certain period of time between two contracts, governed by the United Nations staff rules, during which a person is not employed by the Organization. Competence of decision...

The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management and the CRB correctly determined that it cannot be in the interest of the Organization nor of its operational activities to grant permanent appointments under the circumstances in force. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Application to rescind the decision of the Respondent not to grant the him a permanent appointment. There was no indication that the ICTR was afforded delegation of authority to convert a staff member to a permanent appointment; Section 3.3 of SGB/2009/10 only gives power to the responsible officer of Human Resources at a duty...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision that the Applicant was not eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment was lawful.

The Applicant was denied eligibility for conversion because in 2006 she had a break in service of eight days, which interrupted the continuity of her service. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main issue in the case was whether the break in service in 2006 can be taken into account for the purpose of conversion to a permanent appointment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the break in service that took place in 2006 shall not be taken into account because the Applicant was induced into taking it, without proper legal basis, as a condition for her employment in New York. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered rescission of the decision...

The Tribunal has to strike a balance between the subjective and introspective feelings and perception of the aggrieved staff member with the application of reasonableness, rationality and objectivity in arriving at a fair and proper assessment of damage particularly involving the indefinable characteristics of what has been described in broad general terms as ¡°moral damage¡±.The Applicant distress and anxiety as a result of feeling extremely upset and not valued by the Organization cannot justifiably be placed at the top end of the scale of severity but rather at the lower end. This is even...

It is not disputed by either party that the Applicant was not employed by the Organization during the one week period between the curtailment, requested by himself, of his employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵECA and his appointment at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHQ. Furthermore, the Applicant ¡°does not seek to challenge the 2005 decision creating the break in service, but, [in light of the Tribunal¡¯s decision in Gomez], the later decision not to consider him eligible for conversion to permanent appointment on the basis of that earlier decision¡±. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was ineligible for consideration for conversion to...

The Applicant specifically submits that the staff rules state that ¡°[c]ontinuity of service shall not be considered broken by periods of special leave¡± and the Respondent may not therefore deny his eligibility on the ground that his six months of special leave without pay resulted in him not having been employed for a continuous period of five years The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds the contested decision and finds that the Applicant is eligible for consideration for permanent appointment.

The Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application and requesting that the case file be placed under seal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, given the already confidential status of the Tribunal¡¯s case files, the Applicant¡¯s request to place the case record under seal need not be granted. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered that, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant¡¯s name be redacted from the Judgment.