Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the issue of reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was reassigned to a position at the same grade and level commensurate with her skills and competencies. By Inter-Office-Memorandum dated 18 August 2020, the Under-Secretary-General for Operational Support (¡°USG/DOS¡±) reassigned the Applicant to another P-5 position, allowing her to maintain her grade, level and contract status. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant had not met her burden to show that the contested decision was ill-motivated or in bad faith. Mere assertions and innuendo were insufficient. On the...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties¡¯ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable because it did not meet the conditions of an appealable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

The contested memorandum is not an administrative decision open to challenge as per the definition adopted by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision affecting her terms of employment and the contested memorandum concerns a general delegation of authority. Consequently, the application is rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

Whether candidates for a Job Opening possess all required criteria is subjected to an assessment entrusted to each hiring manager based on an evaluation of each candidature pursuant to secs. 7.4 and 7.6 of ST/AI/2010/3. Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s allegation, the hiring manager did not use new criteria but provided elements, that were taken into consideration in the assessment process, to come up with a reasoned and objectively justifiable decision aimed to select among a high number of applicants those to be shortlisted. Knowledge of several internal candidates in a D-1 recruitment process...

The Tribunal concluded that based on the record before it, there was no dispute that the decision to abolish the post the Applicant was occupying and, consequently, the decision not to extend his appointment originated from the restructuring approved in the 2016/17 budget for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA by the General Assembly. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to substantiate claims of discrimination against him. As such, the contested decision was taken in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

The Applicant cannot claim that the Administration had initiated a disciplinary process against her. The Applicant had no right to force the Administration to complete a disciplinary process against her. The Administration decided to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process in relation to the Applicant should she be employed with the Organization in the future. Therefore, as in Kennes, the Applicant¡¯s due process rights have not been violated. The note placed in the Applicant's Official Status File is merely informative in nature and does therefore have no impact on the...

The Respondent had no clear and convincing evidence on which to decide on dismissal of the Applicant for violating Ivorian law in 2007 by accepting payment to produce false passports and committing fraud. On a literal interpretation of staff regulation 1.2(b), the Applicant engaged in misconduct. His negative response to the PHP question about prior indictments, fines or imprisonment amounted to an intentional withholding of required information pertinent to the Organization¡¯s background integrity checks. The answer was neither truthful nor honest. The Applicant certified in his PHP that he...

Neither party has¡ªrightly so¡ªdisputed the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s findings in Al Shakour that the United Nations Secretary-General was bound by the General Assembly¡¯s endorsement and adoption of the ICSC¡¯s determination regarding post-adjustment for United Nations staff in Geneva. In doing so, the Tribunal further notes that, as relevant to the present case and following Al Shakour, the General Assembly provided no alternatives for the United Nations Secretary-General on how to compute the relevant post-adjustment payment than by following the ICSC¡¯s determination. Accordingly, as relevant to the...

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

The Applicant has no right to the Administration¡¯s blanket acceptance of his account of events, nor to the imposition of sanctions against another staff member without due process. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first claim, the Tribunal held that pursuant to staff rule 6.2 the entitlement to sick leave does not follow a cycle calculated since the date of appointment as argued by the Applicant, but, rather, is calculated pursuant to its own cycle determined by the date of the sick leave. The Tribunal thus concluded that the method used by the administration to calculate the Applicant's sick leave days was consistent with staff rule 6.2, while the method advocated by the Applicant was not. Accordingly, the application failed on the score of sick leave. On the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant¡¯s complaint was reviewed in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Applicant did not present a prima facie case of harassment as the claims were unsubstantiated and she did not provide adequate proof to support them. The facts did not amount to misconduct or prohibited conduct. The conduct the Applicant alleged even if true, was not harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Consequently, the Administration had a legitimate basis not to proceed with an investigation into these matters. The Applicant did not proffer any evidence to...

OIOS acted in accordance with the procedures set down in ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, taking into account all relevant considerations in reaching its decision under section 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 to take no action on the complaint. Accordingly, there was no foundation for the substantive claim made by the Applicant, nor any foundation for any award of compensation. An investigation would not resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the SRSG, since there clearly was and remains inter-personal differences between them. Instead, it would likely deepen the divide between them. An...

Scope of judicial review The Applicant only challenged the dismissal of his complaint against his FRO and SRO by way of management evaluation. Recalling the general requirement of staff rule 11.2(a), the Tribunal will limit its scope of judicial review to the decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint against his FRO and SRO. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals against the MEU¡¯s responses to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. Therefore, it will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments against the MEU¡¯s responses to his request for management...

The Applicant did not appeal a final administrative decision carrying direct legal effects. The application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The contested decisions had no nexus with the Applicant's former employment with the Organization, the application was therefore not receivable ratione personae.

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation.