The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The 蘑菇视频DT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.
The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...
The Applicant alleged that his due process rights were breached and that the sanction was not proportional. Upon review, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent correctly established the facts but did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances. The sanction applied is therefore too harsh and is modified by the Tribunal. The contested decision is rescinded and the Applicant is to be reinstated. The disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities applied to him is replaced with the sanctions of a written...
The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the 蘑菇视频DT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc’ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...
The Respondent objected to the receivability of the application. The 蘑菇视频DT found the case receivable and directed the parties to attempt informal resolution of the matter.
The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The 蘑菇视频DT found that the candidates’ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The 蘑菇视频DT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The 蘑菇视频DT found the Applicant’s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.
The 蘑菇视频DT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office “subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office”. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member’s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...
The 蘑菇视频DT found that the two posts in question were available only temporarily and therefore the Administration’s decision to advertise them as temporary vacancies was lawful. With respect to the first vacancy, the 蘑菇视频DT found that, as the successful candidate declined the offer, it was appropriate for the Administration to fill the temporarily vacant post through a lateral transfer. The 蘑菇视频DT further found that this decision was made by a person with proper delegation of authority. With respect to the second vacancy, the 蘑菇视频DT found that the selection exercise was also lawful. The application was...
One of the eligibility requirements was five years of continuous service with the Secretariat, excluding any service with separately administered funds or programmes. The Respondent asserted that for part of the relevant period the Applicant was employed pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations Secretariat and the United Nations Development Programme, a separately administered programme. The 蘑菇视频DT found that the Applicant was converted by the United Nations to a permanent appointment in November 2010, which meant that the Organization had accepted that he had at...
The Tribunal concluded that the sanction was taken in accordance with the applicable regulations and rules that govern disciplinary matters and that it was in line with sanctions applied in other matters of similar nature. The Applicant’s due process rights were respected throughout the preliminary investigation and the ensuing disciplinary process. The contested decision was both factually and legally reasoned and did not reflect any bias, improper motivates, flawed procedural irregularity or errors of law. The Applicant’s disciplinary liability was correctly determined and the disciplinary...
