Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG¡¯s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ ultimate selection decision...

The Tribunal finds that the circumstances appertaining at the time of recruitment of the Applicant created a legal expectancy of renewal. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was arrived at in breach of her rights to due process. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the non-renewal of the contract subject to the duty to mitigate.

Placing the Applicant on SLWFP. The Tribunal agrees with and adopts the Kamunyi reasoning that former staff rule 105.2 did not permit placing a staff member on SLWFP where an investigation was being made into possible wrong-doing by that staff member. The formal nature of the OIOS/PTF investigation. A preliminary investigation under ST/AI/371, sec. 2, is differentiated from a formal investigation under ST/AI/371, sec. 6, as occupying different places within the overall structure of ST/AI/371. For an investigation to be regarded as merely preliminary in nature, some ¡°reason to believe¡± must...

Compensation for stress and anxiety The Applicant produced medical evidence of stress and anxiety. The Tribunal finds that this aspect of the claim is made out. Also, the actions of Mr. Stephen Lieberman, Chief Administrative Officer, described in the Tribunal¡¯s Judgment on liability, were high-handed and grossly disproportionate and the attempt at misleading both the JAB and JDC panels, as well as Counsel for the Respondent and the Tribunal in the present proceedings, constitute aggravating factors which the Tribunal finds heightened the distress experienced by the Applicant. In arriving at a...

At this stage, the Applicant¡¯s allegations are assertions that are not adequately supported by evidence. Outcome: Dismissal of the application.

Performance evaluation: The Respondent followed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Personnel Policy guidelines for the rebuttal process by having a review of the Applicant¡¯s appraisal by the Management Review Group (MRG) which conducted at least two reviews. However, since the second review was completed with insufficient time for the Applicant to submit a written statement of agreement to the Head of Office, wait for a response and then submit a written rebuttal, if necessary, the Respondent breached Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA policy requirements and the right to due process. The Applicant had a mandated right as a dissatisfied staff...

Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found in Villamoran Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/126, that the mandatory 31-day break in service for staff between their fixed-term and temporary appointments, if not supported by law, is prima facie unlawful. The Respondent was ordered to provide evidence to support the decision but failed to do so. The evidence submitted neglected to show the publication date or the precise method of publication of the revised administrative instruction. The Administration has an obligation to properly announce amendments to Staff rules and regulations for decisions to be proper and made...

The Administration, on three separate occasions in 2000, determined that his post would remain classifiable at the P-3 level. In 2006, the Applicant made another request to have his post reclassified and a desk audit of the post was performed under ST/AI/1998/9, but the post remained classified at the P-3 level. The Applicant contended that the Respondent failed to comply with the established procedures as set out in ST/AI/1998/9, including that the Applicant was not provided with available documentation to justify the decisions and that this effectively deprived him from filing a meaningful...

The Applicant¡¯s alleged abuse of Buddy qualified as such conduct. Not returning the Applicant to the Canine Unit. It was proper not to return the Applicant to his former job after the disciplinary case against him had been dismissed. Not returning Buddy. Since Buddy was surrendered to the custody of the New York State Police, the United Nations would appear to have transferred back the property rights over Buddy to the New York State Police. Regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary case against the Applicant, it would therefore seem that the Respondent is not able to return Buddy to the...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were observed by the Organization in its handling of the complaint and rejected the application in its entirety. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Organization in handling the complaint, both individually and in aggregate, met the requirements of due process.