Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

None.

The Applicant made an application for strike out, summary judgment and transfer of the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT New York or Geneva on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest for various reasons. The Tribunal issued Order No. 28 refusing the requests for strike out, summary judgment and transfer and, in accordance with Article 19 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure (ROP), gave case management directives, which the Applicant was supposed to comply with by 4 March 2010 but he did not do so. Subsequent to the Tribunal issuing an Order to show cause, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that its...

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...

There may be cases that take longer to be heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that this may provide a reason justifying compensation beyond the two-year limit. This was such a case. Compensation in lieu of rescission was set at two years and 2 months¡¯ net-base salary. The Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation was excessive. It equated to over 13 years of net-base salary plus payment of a number of entitlements. Apart from being well outside the scope of compensation that might properly be ordered by the Tribunal, the Applicant¡¯s claim was predicated on the mistaken belief that but for the unlawful dismissal he...

A judgment in which it is decided that the summary dismissal of the Applicant was wrongful calls for a rescission of the said sanction. The Applicant had a reasonable expectation that he would remain in service beyond the date of his wrongful summary dismissal. The Tribunal refuses the request that the Applicant ought to be compensated on a P5 scale and agrees with the Respondent¡¯s argument that such an award would be merely speculative. A summary dismissal is the most severe sanction that the Respondent may impose on a staff member for serious misconduct. Judicial notice is taken of the fact...

The current Application for suspension of action must be adjudicated against the stipulated cumulative test, in that the Applicant must establish that the impugned decision is prima facie unlawful, calls for urgent adjudication and that implementation of the impugned decision would cause him irreparable harm. The Tribunal finds no impropriety in the Respondent¡¯s application of the staff retention criteria in respect of the Applicant. This Application therefore fails on the limb of prima facie unlawfulness therefore. Having found that the impugned decision is not unlawful, and given that the...

The Tribunal held that the presence of bad faith in some of the Respondent¡¯s actions concerning the Applicant stood out in bold relief. There was no doubt that the bad blood between the Applicant and her immediate supervisor created a ripple effect and alienated her from the Chief of ICTS. The testimony on why and how the recruitment process for VA 421846 had to be overhauled clearly reflected a blatant manipulation of the selection process set out in ST/AI/2006/3; a subversion and clear breach of United Nations Staff Rules. The Applicant did not make out a case with regard to her allegations...

The Respondent having conceded that his summary dismissal of the Applicant was a flawed decision, the only issue before the Tribunal was the matter of compensation and other entitlements due to the Applicant. The payment of a sum equivalent to two years net base salary to the Applicant in the circumstances was sufficient compensation for non-reinstatement. The Tribunal rejected the relief sought for an international posting in lieu of reinstatement or the payment of the equivalent of twenty-one years salary. The payment of a sum equivalent to six months salary to the Applicant was sufficient...

A respondent who neglects to take part in the proceedings by not filing a reply within 30 days of receipt of the application may be readmitted by leave of the Tribunal only. The respondent in such a case is solely and effectively excluded by his own negligence to file a reply in time. He is not excluded by the Tribunal but by the operation of law. By his preposterous claim that the Registrar and the Judge owed him a duty to remind him of his obligations to his client, the Respondent¡¯s Counsel, sought, in the Tribunal¡¯s view, to provide an excuse for his own incompetence and lack of diligence...

The Tribunal found that the acts complained of amounted to misconduct under Staff Regulation 1.2 and Staff Rule 301.3(d) as conduct unbecoming of an international civil servant and as sexual harassment in connection with work. A written censure was a lenient sanction in the circumstances. Sexual harassment in connection with work, as prohibited by Staff Rule 301.3(d), includes a situation where outside the workplace a staff member perpetrated an act of sexual harassment upon another staff member.