Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant did not assert any right acquired in terms of his previous contract of employment with the Organization. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant did not have standing and that the application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The facts of the case amounted to two decisions being challenged: the decision of the RSCE to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for education grant for his son for the 2019-2020 academic year, in total or prorated, and the Head of Mission¡¯s refusal to grant the Applicant an exception under staff rule 12.3(b). The Applicant only requested management evaluation of the RSCE decision. To the extent that the Applicant contested the decision of the Head of Mission, the application was not receivable since the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of that decision. The Applicant did not...

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1. They were timely, having been filed within the applicable deadline, following a properly requested management evaluation. 2. An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips for the month of February 2018. 3. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s claim that the administrative discretion is a criterion for determining receivability of an application...

The Applicant¡¯s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

The Applicant did not advance any exception to the rule that General Assembly resolutions may not be amenable to judicial review by the Tribunal. Those exceptions arise where the Secretary-General is mandated to interpret an ambiguous regulatory decision, to comply with procedures or where the implementation of the resolution involves application of a criteria. In the instant case, the Secretary-General¡¯s role in implementation of the resolution to abolish the P-4 Engineering position was mechanical and was not reviewable . In that regard, the Respondent was correct that that limb of the...

At the time of the management evaluation, the contested decision had not been implemented and, therefore, had not had any impact on the Applicants¡¯ terms of employment. The contested administrative decision did not, therefore, constitute a reviewable administrative decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant indicated in his application that he was informed of the contested decision on 1 October 2019 and that he did not request management evaluation of said decision, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly held that the application was not receivable and dismissed it.

While DD refused to give testimony to the Tribunal, and not being a United Nations staff member is not obliged to do so, this does not by itself render his interview statement inadmissible or otherwise invalid.; The Tribunal notes that the crux of the present case is whether the comments and proposals of the Applicant were of inappropriate sexual nature, or if instead, they simply concerned the security and safety of the premises or otherwise were nothing but jokes and lighthearted remarks.; As the Tribunal rejected all the Applicant¡¯s submissions regarding the facts not having been...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against her first reporting officer¡¯s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/030 and 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant¡¯s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...

In making the final decision on the Applicants¡¯ complaint, the then Director General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant used his position of authority to unduly influence the continued employment of FM at GITTS, MINUSCA. The fact that the Applicant failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from his sexual relationship with FM and his continued involvement in her recruitment at GITTS, MINUSCA were proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Applicant sent interview questions to the complainant, and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant used his position of authority as Chief of GITTS, MINUSCA, to unduly influence the...

Regarding the Respondent¡¯s claim that the Applicant cannot challenge the managerial action imposed on him for failing to request a management evaluation, the Tribunal found that the challenged managerial action is a non-disciplinary measure imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process and therefore the Applicant can challenge it, along with disciplinary measures, without requesting a management evaluation under staff rule 11.2(b). Regarding the question of whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established, the Tribunal found that the facts that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that Ms. Wenz¡¯ application was irreceivable ratione materiae and that therefore, it did not have to address the question of whether the application was also irreceivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s participation in mediation efforts did not automatically extend the time limit for filing a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Secretary-General was not estopped from raising the issue of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...

The Administration has to prove their allegation of breaches of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal took the view that the case of misrepresentations had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. While the Applicant made several submissions in mitigation, she did not introduce any facts that constituted a denial of the breaches alleged. The Organization must maintain standards and be fair to all concerned. Consequently, if others were rejected for employment during the recruitment process because they were not qualified, then this should be the position across the board...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant¡¯s rights. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s Judgment dismissing the Appellant¡¯s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the source of the Secretary-General¡¯s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD¡¯s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable both ratione personae and ratione materiae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision had no bearing on her status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of her former appointment or contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application in its entirety.