Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the non-renewal appeared to be based on a mission-wide retrenchment exercise and that it appeared that the Applicant served in an occupational group and against a functional title impacted by the downsizing of MINUSTAH. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the panel responsible for carrying out a comparative review of the affected staff members erred in applying the agreed evaluation criteria when assessing the Applicant and other staff members in the related category.Outcome: The application for suspension of action was rejected.

Following the filing of the application for suspension of action, the Respondent filed a submission stating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA had agreed to allow the Applicant to retain a lien against her post and, accordingly, the application should be dismissed as moot. In response, the Applicant submitted to the Tribunal that, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA had agreed to grant her a lien on her post, as a result of this decision not made earlier, she would be placed on special leave without pay due to the exhaustion of her sick leave and annual leave days, pending finalization of arrangements for temporary employment in New York...

Assessment of irreparable damage in relation to non-selection decisions: The applicant was not the only recommended candidate and, therefore, it could not be concluded that he would have been selected for the litigious post. Accordingly, he failed to show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him irreparable damage.

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/029) ¨C merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.

The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIT¡¯s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found...

The Applicant contends that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was based on irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism and that it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of ST/AI/2010/5, however, he failed to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged made the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract unlawful. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the first requirement of a suspension of action application, which is to show the prima facie unlawfulness of the contested decision.