Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In reviewing a decision not to renew an appointment, the role of the Dispute Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion not to renew was validly exercised. Where justification is given by the Respondent for the exercise of its discretion, that justification must be borne out by the facts. Both Parties have told the Tribunal that the Applicant took his grievances to the Retention Committee, which Committee then reviewed the Applicant¡¯s claim and found that the Retention Panel (which the Applicant chaired) had properly carried out the exercise it was charged with. The Tribunal is also...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

Consultation prior to the contested decision being taken: The Applicant alleged that he was not consulted prior to the contested decision being taken. The Tribunal was satisfied however that the Applicant had written notice of the impending decision from as early as 7 January 2013 and that from this date he engaged in extensive correspondence with the Administration about this issue. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was consulted and that such consultation met the test set out previously in Rees Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/156, Gehr Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/142 and Adundo et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/188 Legitimate expectation of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within the prescribed time period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal concluded that: the investigation was carried out in accordance with the correct procedures; the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; the facts established amounted to misconduct under the staff regulations and rules and that the sanction imposed was not excessive. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s submission that the investigation into his actions should not have been commenced because there was no evidence of harm to the Organization. Pursuant to ST/AI/371/Amend.1, once there is reason to believe that a staff member...

Consolidation of applications: The Tribunal concluded that consolidation would not have any effect on the parties¡¯ rights as the two applications are virtually identical and each party will have the opportunity to have its case fully considered both as to receivability and on the merits albeit in one judgment. Receivability of the classification decision: Noting that Fuentes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT-2010-064 and Fuentes 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-105 confirm that a failure to decide an appeal against classification of a post encumbered by the Applicant is an administrative decision which may be subject to review by the Tribunal...

Moral damages ¨C As held in Asariotis 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-309, damages for a moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed (be they specifically designated in the Staff Regulations and Rules or arising from the principles of natural justice). Where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may of itself give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of...

The decision was based on a restructuring exercise of the OOSA Office, Beijing, by which the Applicant¡¯s post, which was funded through contributions from the Chinese Government, was replaced by a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4 post). The Applicant claimed that this was irrelevant since her non-renewal was relating to concerns about her performance. The Applicant, whose letter of appointment was with the United Nations Development Program (¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡±), had requested timely management evaluation with the Management Evaluation Unit at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Headquarters. She had, however, filed a request for management...