Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Dispute Tribunal found that the Applicant did not manage to lift her burden of proving that the non-renewal of her contract was not due to poor performance and found instead that the decision was lawful.

The Respondent submitted that the case was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not concern an appealable decision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim and found the case receiveable.

The Tribunal notes that, while the non-selection decision is not explicitly mentioned in the Applicant¡¯s list of impugned decisions in his management evaluation request, it could be regarded as subsumed under the description of ¡°preselecting particular posts to go to external candidates¡± and the suggestion that the process was not transparent but ¡°opaque¡±. The Applicant did request management evaluation of the non-selection decisions and that his claim in this regard is receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). As the Applicant failed to...

The Tribunal concludes that the Hiring Manager erred in finding that the selected candidate¡¯s Master¡¯s degree was related to, and therefore relevant for, any of the required specifically mentioned areas (computer science, information systems, mathematics, statistics) and wrongly determined that she fulfilled the educational requirement.; The Tribunal concludes that an additional criterion was used to evaluate only the selected candidate for the post, namely field experience, and that this criterion was not included in the Job Opening and the Hiring Manager erred in finding that the selected...

The Tribunal rejected the application noting that the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Respondent has executed the Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/185.

The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant¡¯s application for the three P-3 posts was not fully and fairly considered, since the Hiring Manager did not personally evaluate her candidacy based on the information included in the PHP and e-PAS reports, while formally endorsing the decision of the CSS/OSU not to shortlist the Applicant. The Applicant¡¯s e-PAS reports contained essential information regarding the Applicant¡¯s fulfilment of the highly desirable requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal concludes that it has no competence to order the Secretary-General to assess the way the...

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...

The Administration decided to re-examine an earlier decision not to review the two job descriptions. The Applicant was notified that after multiple reviews it was decided that the two job descriptions would not be revised. The Applicant received notification of this final and unambiguous decision at a moment, which puts her request for management evaluation well within the deadline. The application is deemed receivable.

General Assembly Resolution 61/264 (Liabilities and proposed funding for after-service health insurance), adopted on 4 April 2007, introduced a major change in relation to a fundamental and essential contractual right, namely the right to after-service health insurance. The Tribunal is of the view that General Assembly Resolution 61/264 relates to the fundamental human right of medical care/health, which includes the right to after-service health insurance, and should have been implemented through specific and clear staff rules adopted by the Secretary-General. However, due to an inherited...

It is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level. Such a reassignment is lawful if reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. The responsibilities must correspond to the level, the function must be commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and skills and the staff member must have substantial experience in the field. An Organization has to act fairly, honestly, justly and transparently towards a staff member. If an Organization offers a staff member a...