Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the selected candidates, which were endorsed by the Central Review Board, were graded above the Applicant and that there was no merit to his claim of impropriety regarding the selection process which was lawful and was not tainted by bias or other improper considerations. Participation of former incumbent in selection process: The Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual does not limit an incumbent¡¯s involvement with regard to the selection of his or her successor for a post that has already been vacated. Therefore his presence on the interview panel did not affect any of the Applicant...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application. Scope of judicial control: In appointment and promotion matters the Tribunal's role is limited to examining whether the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration, whether the decision was taken without any bias against the Applicant, whether proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant material was taken into account. Elements prior to the selection process¡ªsuch as a restructuring exercise, the transfer of the selected candidate to a given post¡ªare normally not under consideration. Administration¡¯s discretion to define the...

When joining Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS in 2009, the Applicant¡¯s nationality for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Application was not res judicata. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2013/014). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration¡¯s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

The Applicant does not deny that her claim for compensation regarding two claims under Appendix D to the Staff Rules was time-barred. Rather, she submits that the record shows that the delay incurred by her in submitting a claim to the ABCC was the result of her being unable to obtain clear advice from HRMS regarding the process to follow with regard to submitting a claim to the ABCC. The ABCC decision is partially rescinded and the Applicant¡¯s request for the reimbursement of the Ayurveda treatment is remanded to the ABCC for a fair and full consideration. The Tribunal included observations...

In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as a consequence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Income Tax Unit¡¯s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife¡¯s income tax liability in future years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s claim for a refund was not moot, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC¡¯s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 2009 Johnson case and the present case dealt with identical factual circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General contended that, following the issuance of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240, it was clear that he could no longer require staff members to apply their foreign tax credits to reduce tax liability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had already used her foreign tax credit in 2010 before the Organisation changed its policy and rescinded its decision to require her to apply her foreign tax credits for her 2010 tax...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, at the time Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF sought to make the correction from termination to non-renewal, the staff member was already separated from service, and it was, therefore, too late to reverse the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s separation from service was termination on grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance and that the Administration¡¯s decision to reverse the decision was untimely and ineffective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to reverse Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had been deprived of a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained in force.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-416. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...