Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not have standing to bring a claim in accordance with arts. 2 and 3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The application was struck out as manifestly inadmissible.

The Tribunal found that the hiring manager acted on the basis of a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based only on the result of his competencybased interview. Further, the hiring manager ignored relevant material when he did not take into account the Applicant¡¯s performance assessment reports, which indicated that he was ¡°outstanding¡± at teamwork.

The Application is not receivable pursuant to arts. 8.1 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s ruling in Terragnolo 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-517. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the merits of the case. Given the nature of the defects in the pleadings prepared by her Counsel, including the failure to observe basic legal and procedural requirements within the United Nations regulatory framework and Staff Rules, Counsel may wish to review the bill of costs, if any.

Selection process: The Tribunal accepted that in the absence of any incumbent of the D-2 post, the decision of the USG/DFS, as Head of Department, to assume direct responsibility for the recruitment process through the Chief of Staff, was not an improper exercise of discretion.Second set of interviews and composition of the Second Panel: The Tribunal found that the decision to hold a second round of interviews, and the composition of the Panel, did not amount to a procedural irregularity in the particular circumstances of this case.Lengthy delay in the selection procedure: The Tribunal...

The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent¡¯s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

Did the involvement of a retiree from the Organization in the pre-screening and short-listing process, and the competency-based interview, affect the propriety of the selection exercise?The Tribunal found that, while retirees should generally not be hired by the Organization if other options are available, the involvement of a retiree in the selection process did not in any way prejudice the candidacy of the Applicant. The Applicant was found to have met all the requirements for the post, was short-listed and was invited to participate in a competency-based interview. Further, the Applicant...

Was the decision based on properly promulgated legal instruments or other issuances?

The primary and binding legal instrument is ST/SGB/2009/10, to be read together with the Guidelines made thereunder. It is not for the decision-makers to operate outside the strict terms of the primary legal instrument by explicit or tacit agreement to adopt a rule of practice or procedure that is not in strict compliance with ST/SGB/2009/10 and its guidance. Above all, those making recommendations or decisions must be guided by the Organization¡¯s policies as reflected in properly promulgated administrative...

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

The Tribunal found that the applications were receivable since the contested decisions produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal further found that the chosen period of retroactive application of one year was not only unlawful because it was based on a misconstruction and misapplication of staff rule 3.16 but it was manifestly unreasonable, irrational, and above all unjustifiably discriminatory. It did not amount to a proper exercise of administrative discretion and breached the fundamental principle of equal pay...

The application was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. The Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 2,000 for abuse of process. On receivability: The Tribunal found that the PDF version of the application attached to the email of 15 September 2012, also copied to OHRM and EO/OCHA, met the requirements of art. 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal. It was moreover identical to the application filed through the e-filing portal on 15 October 2012. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s claims of moral damage are receivable and well founded and he is awarded USD1,000 as compensation for anxiety. The Tribunal finds that it is incorrect to characterize the decision to hire new staff members as being purely preparatory in nature as the contested decision was in fact implemented and the outcome of the selection process could have adversely affected the Applicant. It is therefore a contestable administrative decision. Further, even if a decision is rescinded, if an applicant can show that there was a causal link between the breach on the...

The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant¡¯s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decisions were lawful and that there was no evidence to support the claim that these decisions were motivated by ill will. The Tribunal also expressed its concern at the huge volume of unnecessary as well as irrelevant material that had been filed by the Applicant thereby imposing an onerous burden on the Tribunal at the expense of other cases awaiting a judicial determination.

The Tribunal noted an indication of favouritism towards a particular candidate and a desire to appease the staff council neither of which are consistent with the standard of conduct...

The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not commit the misconduct of providing false information in his annual leave report. The Respondent correctly established the facts for the remaining charges of the misconduct. However, the Respondent did not fully take into account all the mitigating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction. The Tribunal found the disciplinary measure disproportionate to the misconduct and modified it. The contested decision is rescinded. The disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of...

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU¡ªwhich missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

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 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 application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...