Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal granted the application, and the contested decision was rescinded and SLWP request remanded for the ASG/OHRM¡¯s consideration within 30 days.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the DM post under the framework established by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Tribunal finds that, had the Applicant been afforded proper consideration for the DM post as a displaced permanent staff member, he would have had fifty per cent chance of being selected. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the selection process was tainted by bias against the Applicant. Having considered relevant factors¡ªnamely, that (i) the Applicant lost a fifty per cent chance of being selected...

The Applicant, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remanded the Applicant¡¯s request to the Secretary-General for consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT directed that, within one month of the date of this judgment, the Applicant shall submit any further documentation to the MSD New York that he wishes to be taken into consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further ordered that, within 90 calendar days of the date of this Judgment, the Respondent, through a properly designated office, shall render a decision on the Applicant¡¯s request.

As the Appeals Tribunal stated in Bowen 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-183, the Applicant¡¯s termination indemnity should be taken into account when awarding compensation. This is consistent with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s pronouncement in Warren 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-059 that ¡°the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations¡±. Therefore, as both the termination indemnity and the payment in lieu of notice stemmed from the improper termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, these sums shall be deducted from...

The sanction was based on a finding that the Applicant had engaged in misconduct when he left a hand-held radio and an MP5 9 mm submachine gun with two magazines and approximately 60 rounds of ammunition Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵATtended in a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ vehicle that he had been operating, resulting in these items being stolen when an unknown person or persons broke into that vehicle while the Applicant waited several minutes in a restaurant for a take-out meal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Tribunal found that the imposed sanction was not manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, obviously absurd or flagrantly arbitrary. It was within the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the element of the application concerning conversion to permanent appointment was not receivable as the Applicant had not requested management evaluation of this decision. In respect to the receivable elements of the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal. However, the Tribunal found that the decision not to renew his appointment was unlawful, as it was based on a flawed performance management process. In particular, in the Applicant¡¯s first performance cycle, there were significant delays in the implementation of the various...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9(6)(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s termination was unlawful because he did not receive proper...

Appeals against Ethics Office: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the role of the Ethics Office under ST/SGB/2005/21 is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and that such recommendations do not in themselves affect terms of appointment of staff members. the review made by the Ethics Office is not a substitute to the internal system of justice, which includes the Dispute Tribunal. Therefore, filing of a complaint with the Ethics Office does not replace the requirements of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, its Rules of Procedures, and the Staff Rules. Any...

Compensation for delayed placement on roster of pre-approved candidates: Although the Applicant was not selected for the post, the delay in the selection exercise had a direct impact on him because, had this exercise been finished sooner, the Applicant would have been placed on the roster of pre-approved candidates earlier, which would have opened up additional employment opportunities that would have been available to him as a roster candidate. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration in the selection process. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the selection exercise...