Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

There is no evidence on the record that the mandatory procedure established in secs. 9, 10, 15 and 16 of ST/AI/400 for separation by abandonment of post was followed in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Administration did not act fairly and transparently with the Applicant. DSS lead the Applicant to believe that it was still considering granting him a SLWOP, while, at the same time, it recommended the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment due to his unauthorized absence on the other. That the non-renewal decision following the expiration of the Applicant¡¯s contract, constitutes a separation...

The established facts considered in their entirety amount to misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can manifest itself in different forms, its determination is fact specific, and its occurrence is not limited to work places during work hours. The Applicant¡¯s conduct amounts to sexual harassment in violation of staff rule 1.2(f). A plain reading of the Applicant¡¯s Facebook messages shows their sexual nature. Moreover, in the Tribunal¡¯s view, the Applicant was put on notice that his sexual advances were unwelcome by Ms. X¡¯s text message in July 2012 requesting that he...

The application is not receivable. The Applicant, as a staff member at the relevant time period, had a right to be fully and fairly considered as part of the terms of his former employment. Since the Applicant decided not to apply for JO 41653 in the belief that the post in question would be abolished according to the budget proposal for OICT, the question is whether he is entitled to a review of the contested decision despite his decision not to apply for the job opening. It is not disputed that the budget proposal for OICT was not adopted at the time of the publication and closing of JO...

The Tribunal finds that since the Applicant¡¯s EOD into the United Nations common system is 10 October 2005, the Administration used the incorrect EOD date for the calculation of the termination indemnity due to the Applicant. Therefore, the contested decision is unlawful and stands to be rescinded. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has placed no evidence whatsoever, illustrating any discriminatory treatment against him. On the contrary, the record indicates that the Respondent took measures to ensure that the Applicant did not suffer hardship following his separation from service by...

The Applicant¡¯s actions were reasonable and in accordance with her obligation to carefully verify the cost of administrative services, procurement and logistical support, since all the costs were supported by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI, in order to ensure that all the provisions of the OIOS Audit Manual were respected. There was no concrete negative result on the planned audit resulting from the annulment of the first MOP and that the Applicant¡¯s actions, which she was taking in her capacity as CMS in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI, consisting in a careful review of the alternative means to a face-to-face visit which could have resulted...

HLIS acted fairly and transparently in advising the Applicant that she had to update her mailing address to receive her insurance card and did not act in a negligent manner. The applicable law does not allow a retroactive termination of the enrollment in the United Nations Headquarters-administered insurance programme outside of the annual campaign. There was no legal basis for the retroactive cancellation of the Applicant¡¯s enrollment in the United Nations Headquartersadministered insurance programme and reimbursement of the premiums and thus there was no legal basis for any other...

The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

Under sec. 3.2 of ST/SB/2008/5 and as a matter of good faith and fair dealing, by failing/omitting to review and consider an Applicant¡¯s complaint and informing him of the result, the Administration rendered an appealable administrative decision in accordance with art. 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s consistent jurisprudence. The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

To be legally valid, a request for the withdrawal of an application must be formulated by the applicant and/or by his/her counsel and must consist of the unconditional expression of the applicant¡¯s free will to close his case before a judgment is issued. As the Applicant withdrew the matter in finality, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withdrew the application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.