Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s intentional actions amounted to misconduct. Although the Applicant did not receive any money from the health insurance company, the mere fact that he attempted to defraud the company by knowingly submitting false information constituted a violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and amounted to misconduct. Whereas the Applicant contended that his termination was disproportionate particularly in view of his 17 years of service to the Organisation and his continuous satisfactory performance, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to...

Pursuant to staff rule 3.17(ii), the Applicant was required to make a written claim to receive retroactive SPA ¡°within one year following the date on which [she] would have been entitled to the initial payment¡±. This request should have been made within one year of 1 December 2009, that is, by or before 1 December 2010. However, it was only on 5 September 2011 that the Applicant wrote an interoffice memorandum requesting an extension of her SPA at the P-2 level from 1 December 2009 to the then-present time to account for the additional functions that she had been performing. The Applicant...

The procedure for conducting investigations of allegations of harassment and abuse of authority by staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF is set out in Administrative Instruction CF/EXD/2012-007. The Applicant provided no evidence that the CF/EXD/2012-007 procedures were not complied with in relation to his case. The undisputed evidence before the Tribunal was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s independent OIAI discussed the allegations with the Applicant but concluded that it did not merit a comprehensive review and was not a well-founded allegation of prohibited conduct. It proposed alternative recourse, which the Applicant...

The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that its authority to suspend or waive the time limits set forth in art. 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute did not extend to deadlines for management evaluation. These deadlines cannot be waived notwithstanding whether the failing of the deadline would have been occasioned by confusing information received from the Administration. As provided in staff rule 11.2(c), the deadline for requesting management evaluation may only be extended by the Secretary-General pending efforts for informal resolution conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, under conditions specified...

In light of the parties¡¯ agreement, the Tribunal accordingly entered judgment as follows: a) The Applicant would be paid four months¡¯ net base salary at the level he encumbered prior to his separation from service on 9 August 2013. b) The Applicant would be paid eight months¡¯ net base salary at the level he encumbered prior to his separation from service on 9 August 2013, less the USD equivalent of EUR59,000 calculated as specified below. c) Pursuant to rule 106.5(a) of the United Nations¡¯ Financial Regulations and Rules, the operational rate of exchange, as established by the Under-Secretary...

The best interests of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR were clearly not served by the removal of the Applicant. It is unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe that some members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior management sought to hide behind the veil of acting in the Organization¡¯s best interests to act in their own self-interest. The Tribunal therefore found on that score that the Respondent¡¯s explanation were a mere afterthought which was only spun to defend an action that was clearly lacking in due process and constituted an unfair and highhanded removal of the Applicant and abuse of official discretion. The Tribunal was not in any doubt that the removal of...

The Applicant failed to file a request for management evaluation of the nonrenewal decision within the applicable deadline. This claim was not receivable. The Applicant had in his management evaluation request of 12 July 2015 already accomplished the requirements set out in CF/EXD/2012-007 in relation to his complaints of bullying, harassment, intimidation and abuse of authority against his supervisor and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Country Representative. As held in Kadri, the Applicant was entitled to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his application. The Applicant¡¯s claims in relation to the...

The Respondent withdrew from the impugned decision to change the Applicant¡¯s functional title from Team Assistant to Language Assistant. Accordingly, the claim was moot at the time of the filing of the application and therefore not receivable. With respect to the decision to remove the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the Litani magazine the Tribunal found that this claim was not the subject of management evaluation and therefore not receivability. With respect to the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the impugned decision entailed a change in the Applicant¡¯s place, her...

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

In line with the jurisprudence of the Organization, the role of the Tribunal was limited to reviewing whether the candidate received full and fair consideration, the procedures were followed, improper motives were absent and relevant materials had been considered. In this regard, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has held that a candidate alleging a failure to observe his or her right to full and fair consideration for selection must prove through clear and convincing evidence that procedure was violated, the panel was biased, irrelevant material was considered or relevant material ignored. Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s...