Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the non-renewal appeared to be based on a mission-wide retrenchment exercise and that it appeared that the Applicant served in an occupational group and against a functional title impacted by the downsizing of MINUSTAH. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the panel responsible for carrying out a comparative review of the affected staff members erred in applying the agreed evaluation criteria when assessing the Applicant and other staff members in the related category.Outcome: The application for suspension of action was rejected.

Challenging the valididty of a medical certificate: When a staff member submits a medical certificate to justify his or her absence or the failure to fulfill a professional obligation, and where the Administration questions the validity of the medical certificate, it must have the staff member examined by the Organization¡¯s medical service or, in the event of further dispute, by a medical commission.Outcome: Judgment in favour of applicant in full (both financial compensation and rescission ordered)

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...

Request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action: It follows from the combined provisions of articles 2.2, 11.3 and 12.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute that a request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action is not receivable. Even assuming that such a ruling might be open to revision, it is not possible for the Tribunal to revise it when the contested decision has been fully implemented.Extension of deadline for management evaluation: Staff rule 11.2(c) specifically provides that only the Secretary-General has the authority to extend the deadline for...

Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process.Outcome: Application rejected on receivability

Following the filing of the application for suspension of action, the Respondent filed a submission stating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA had agreed to allow the Applicant to retain a lien against her post and, accordingly, the application should be dismissed as moot. In response, the Applicant submitted to the Tribunal that, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA had agreed to grant her a lien on her post, as a result of this decision not made earlier, she would be placed on special leave without pay due to the exhaustion of her sick leave and annual leave days, pending finalization of arrangements for temporary employment in New York...

The contested decision was to go into effect on 1 June 2012. The initial papers were received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2012, and the Applicant subsequently re-filed her papers as proper application on 30 May 2012. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the urgency in this case was created by the Applicant as she was aware of the contested decision at least since 13 April 2012, and yet filed her proper application only two working days before the decision was to be implemented, providing no explanation for not filing it earlier. As the condition of particular urgency was not met, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not find it...

Assessment of irreparable damage in relation to non-selection decisions: The applicant was not the only recommended candidate and, therefore, it could not be concluded that he would have been selected for the litigious post. Accordingly, he failed to show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him irreparable damage.

Attempted theft: In the instant case, the Applicant¡¯s counsel cites the 23 June 2011 Judgment and argued that ¡°it follows that whereas the offence of an attempt to commit an act that could amount, if completed, to misconduct is not envisaged as a sanctionable offence within the prevailing legislative framework of the United Nations, the dismissal of the Applicant must be held to have been ultra vires.¡± This interpretation and application of the Tribunal¡¯s reasoning in the said judgment to this case and the Applicant¡¯s circumstances is misconceived and misleading. This is because the offence of...

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).

Certification of sick leave: If some staff members as a matter of practice communicated directly with the MSD rather than through their mission, such practice does not detract from or modify written legislation.Recognised regional medical centres: A country in serious political, economic and security situation was unlikely to be the place to seek adequate medical treatment for an ailment recognised by the organization as a condition for medical evacuation. Recovery of overpayment: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ being a humanitarian organization and in providing humanitarian assistance worldwide, needs to...

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that ¡°[s]eparation as a result of ¡­ expiration of appointment ¡­ shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules¡±. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/029) ¨C merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

Receivability/administrative decision: Preparatory measures such as the decision not to prepare a work plan for the purpose of appraising a staff member¡¯s performance can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal. Rebuttal procedure: It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that a staff member may not challenge before the Tribunal his/her performance rating unless he/she has previously initiated the rebuttal process provided for in this administrative instruction.

Not only did Counsel for the Respondent initially refuse to take part in the proceedings because submissions were being filed and submitted through the eFiling portal, she further failed to comply with the Tribunal¡¯s Order granting her an extension of 30 days. This failure, in the circumstances is an abuse of the process of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is entitled to enter, on its own Motion, a default judgment in this case. This means that in the present case, the Tribunal shall rely on the facts as presented by the Applicant and apply the relevant law to these facts. Upon his separation from...

Terms of settlement have been agreed between the parties. They have confirmed that the said terms have been fully executed and that there are no outstanding claims arising from the present case.

A review of other similar cases revealed that only one other staff member was separated for illegal possession/use of drugs, and that was a far more serious case. The sanction in the present case was disproportionate in the light of the comparators. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT endorsed Sow. Equality of treatment in the workplace is a core principle which must be applied by the Secretary-General when imposing disciplinary sanctions.

The Tribunal held that whether an Applicant should be given reasons for the non-renewal of his or her fixed-term contract, even though fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal, should be analyzed on a case by case basis. The Tribunal cited Obdeijn Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/032 which stated that ¡°even though a staff member does not have a right to an automatic renewal of a fixed-term contract, a decision not to renew such a contract may not be taken for improper motives, and the Tribunal is required to consider whether the motives were proper or whether countervailing circumstances existed in the...