Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal is satisfied that since the Post was advertised well before the expiry of the roster on which the successful candidate¡¯s name was included, the successful candidate was eligible to be selected from the roster andthe decision to select him from the roster was, hence, proper. The Tribunal finds that as a roster candidate the Applicant should have been informed by the hiring manager within 14 days after the selection decision was made in writing. The Tribunal finds that even in the absence of a clearly stated timeframe for notifying applicants who have been eliminated prior to the...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to establish a factual basis for her alleged expectation that her contract would be renewed, that she would be given a regularized position, or that she would be placed on special leave without pay at the expiry of her contract. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s temporary appointment was not unlawful.

In the absence of a decision to abolish the post, there can be no suspension of such decision. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has failed to articulate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event of his success in the substantive case. The application for suspension of action would therefore fail on this ground alone. There was not a single averment regarding the prima facie unlawfulness of the alleged decision to abolish the post other than generalisations made regarding an attempted...

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered: (i) USD50,000 for the breach of the Applicant¡¯s right to be properly considered for an appointment beyond 31 December 2005 and resultant harm; (ii) USD20,000 for anxiety and emotional distress. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to give full, fair, and proper consideration to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Bureau of the COP. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that had the Respondent followed proper procedure and afforded proper consideration, the Applicant stood a significantly high chance of receiving an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that would suggest that the Chief, FASB, did not follow any of the applicable rules in denying the Applicant¡¯s request in reliance upon MSD¡¯s recommendation. The fact that the Applicant had not been provided with a reason as to why the treating physicians opinions were not accepted is not at issue in the present case and does not of itself impugn the integrity of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s reliance on MSD¡¯s recommendation was not improper nor was it an impermissible option for the manager to take within the ambit of his responsibilities.The...

Following inter partes discussions pursuant to case management directions by the Tribunal, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having waited for approximately one year and a half to raise claims regarding the alleged lack of access to the United Nations cafeteria facilities, the Applicant acquiesced to the arrangements put in place by the Respondent in view of the renovation-related requirements. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that, in view of the CMP-related requirements that necessitated the move to the Madison Building, the Respondent put in place alternative measures that were neither unreasonable nor unfair. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the Applicants may have committed misconduct was manifestly unreasonable, arrived at in breach of due process, and was thus unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants¡¯ rights were not respected during the subsequent preliminary investigation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to conduct an investigation against the Applicants and the manner in which it was carried out was tainted by procedural irregularity and manifest unfairness. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants had engaged in protected activity, namely, reporting of...