Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Since the Applicant has not sought management evaluation of the alleged instruction for him to work for Warrior Security Limited Company or his allegations of harassment and retaliation in relation to the performance improvement plan, those claims are not properly before the Tribunal. Consequently, the decision to appoint another staff member at the same level as the Applicant¡¯s supervisor and FRO is the only decision that the Tribunal can entertain. Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...

The application was not receivable because of the Applicant¡¯s failure to request management evaluation in good time.

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± and the Applicant¡¯s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel¡¯s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.

The Applicant consistently, throughout the proceedings, admitted the fact that sometime between December 2006 and January 2007, he had stated in his job application that he had no relative working for a public international organization, even though he was aware that at the time his brother was working for the United Nations. As such, the fact that the Applicant failed to disclose relevant information when he should have, is essentially not in dispute. Whereas the Applicant insists to calls his deed an ¡°oversight¡±, it is impossible to accept. By invoking the same justifications for not...

The decision communicated to the Applicant on 29 March 2019 presents essentially the relief sought by the Applicant in his application dated 4 March 2019 and while the Applicant is still insisting on clarification from the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe (RSCE) as to the basis for the impugned decision, this neither minimizes nor negates the fact that the administration acceded to his request and rescinded the impugned decision altogether. The Applicant has not tendered any particulars or evidence to support, prove and/or explain his allegations of harassment, abuse of authority and mental...

Regarding the merits, the abolishment of a number of posts was decided by the; General Assembly. This decision is outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The SecretaryGeneral¡¯s role was to implement it through identifying particular posts for reduction. In the process, the Applicant¡¯s post was so selected, which entailed the decision on termination of his appointment. The Tribunal¡¯s cognizance extends over reviewing the appropriateness of the steps which led to this decision, however, in so far only as they are attributed to the Secretary-General. Prima facie, the Tribunal finds no reason to...

The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that the actions of the Applicant as seen on the video footages were sufficient to rise to the required standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence to establish stealing; but found that the actions of the Applicant after he left with the shopping bag and the glaring inconsistencies in his testimony clearly pointed to a level of dishonesty betraying guilty knowledge that he did not pay for the items at issue. In other words, the Applicant knew that he did not pay for certain items especially after he, a career security officer, was accosted...

The Applicant had unusually received SPA for the more than the four-year period she performed functions at a higher level (February 2012 ¨C June 2016). The post she encumbered was reclassified upwards to the FS-6 level in 2012, not 2006. The Tribunal refused her claim that she was performing higher-level functions between 2006 and 2012 when those functions were not recognized through an upward reclassification as higher-level functions. Additionally, under section 6.2(c) of ST/AI/2003/3, in respect of posts reclassified upwards at established missions, an SPA may not become effective before the...

At the time of the cancellation, the selection process had not been completed. The cancellation itself was an internal step to facilitate another lawful consideration, to wit, gender parity, within the selection process. It did not occasion the Applicant any direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment.