Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal granted the application, and the contested decision was rescinded and SLWP request remanded for the ASG/OHRM¡¯s consideration within 30 days.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

Appeals against Ethics Office: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the role of the Ethics Office under ST/SGB/2005/21 is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and that such recommendations do not in themselves affect terms of appointment of staff members. the review made by the Ethics Office is not a substitute to the internal system of justice, which includes the Dispute Tribunal. Therefore, filing of a complaint with the Ethics Office does not replace the requirements of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, its Rules of Procedures, and the Staff Rules. Any...

The Tribunal dismissed the motion and found the application not receivable ratione temporis because (a) it was filed outside the applicable 90-day time limit as provided for by art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Statute and (b) no extraordinary circumstances prevailed.

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect to the 2011¨C2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation within 60 days of receiving notification of the contested decision, as required by the Staff Rules. The Respondent produced minutes of four meetings held in June 2014, submitting that in the three of the four meetings, the Applicant was informed that her fixed-term appointment would expire and would not be renewed. The Applicant contested the accuracy of the minutes. A hearing on receivability was held at which each of the participants in the June 2014...

As results from the evidence and from the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the contested decision consisted in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB¡¯s recommendation against awarding the Applicant any compensation, which was included in the minutes of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB¡¯s 343rd meeting of 20 February 2014 submitted for the ASG/Controller¡¯s consideration on 4 April 2014.The Tribunal, after reviewing the content of the contested decision, finds that instead of making her own final and reasoned decision on the Applicant¡¯s claim, the ASG/Controller appears to have only signed off on the recommendation made by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB to deny the claim on 23...

The Tribunal rejected the application as non-receivable. The contested decision in the present case is not a final decision but a preliminary step after the fact-finding panel has completed its investigation report. Therefore, the contested decision is not an administrative decision capable of being appealed before the Tribunal.

The non-disciplinary or administrative measure imposed against the Applicant is unlawful because, at the date of issuance of the contested decision, there was no longer an existing employment contract with the Applicant who was no longer a staff member. Accordingly, the Secretary-General had no longer the authority to impose such a measure.The entire complex process of launching an investigation into allegations of misconduct, instituting a disciplinary process and completing it by issuing the final decision, if any, to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure against a staff member...

Not receivable ratione materia. The contested decision in the present case is not a final decision but a preliminary step after the fact-finding panel has completed its investigation report. Therefore, the contested decision is not an administrative decision capable of being appealed before the Tribunal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s review of OLA¡¯s letter. The Tribunal found that OLA¡¯s letter of 11 August 2015 is not an administrative decision in the form of a settlement provided by the Administration based on OLA¡¯s preliminary review of the Applicant¡¯s claim for gross negligence pursuant to art. 3 of ST/SGB/230 or in a form of an offer to submit the claim to arbitration pursuant to art. 6 from ST/SGB/230. Even if OLA¡¯s letter of 11 August 2015 were to be considered, as submitted by the Applicant, as a response to his ¡°notice of arbitration¡±, the Tribunal would have no competence to review it. As clearly results...

The Tribunal found that the application, even if it was diligently filed by the Applicant, was premature as the Applicant¡¯s reconsideration request was still pending before the Secretary-General.

he Tribunal rescinded the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment and ordered the Respondent to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment retroactively from 7 June 2014. As the contested decision concerned a question of appointment, the Respondent was given the alternative option of paying the Applicant USD5,000 in compensation. The Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages was rejected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within the prescribed time period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The application was rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.