Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant¡¯s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children¡¯s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant¡¯s filing of his application was prompt and...

The contested decision was not, in itself, unfavourable to the Applicant since it did not prevent her from applying for the position again. The only decision which the Applicant would have had a legitimate interest in contesting, was the decision not to appoint her to the position she encumbered after its reclasification as Senior Career Management Assistant at the G-5 level. However, the Applicant did not contest this decision. The application was not receivable, since the Applicant did not have any legitimate interest in requesting the suspension of the decision to readvertise the position...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit his request for management evaluation in due time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was irreceivable as time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nted that the Applicants¡¯ requests for management evaluation were submitted after the applicable deadline had already expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that, while the Applicants were active and diligent in bringing their concerns and grievances to higher authorities, these actions did not constitute sending a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application for suspension of action was irreceivable as time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the situation held particular urgency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant¡¯s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.