Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the Applicants may have committed misconduct was manifestly unreasonable, arrived at in breach of due process, and was thus unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants¡¯ rights were not respected during the subsequent preliminary investigation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to conduct an investigation against the Applicants and the manner in which it was carried out was tainted by procedural irregularity and manifest unfairness. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicants had engaged in protected activity, namely, reporting of...

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc¡¯ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...

The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the candidates¡¯ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the Applicant¡¯s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that would suggest that the Chief, FASB, did not follow any of the applicable rules in denying the Applicant¡¯s request in reliance upon MSD¡¯s recommendation. The fact that the Applicant had not been provided with a reason as to why the treating physicians opinions were not accepted is not at issue in the present case and does not of itself impugn the integrity of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s reliance on MSD¡¯s recommendation was not improper nor was it an impermissible option for the manager to take within the ambit of his responsibilities.The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office ¡°subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office¡±. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member¡¯s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the two posts in question were available only temporarily and therefore the Administration¡¯s decision to advertise them as temporary vacancies was lawful. With respect to the first vacancy, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, as the successful candidate declined the offer, it was appropriate for the Administration to fill the temporarily vacant post through a lateral transfer. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that this decision was made by a person with proper delegation of authority. With respect to the second vacancy, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the selection exercise was also lawful. The application was...

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant was denied eligibility for conversion because in 2006 she had a break in service of eight days, which interrupted the continuity of her service. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main issue in the case was whether the break in service in 2006 can be taken into account for the purpose of conversion to a permanent appointment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the break in service that took place in 2006 shall not be taken into account because the Applicant was induced into taking it, without proper legal basis, as a condition for her employment in New York. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered rescission of the decision...

The administrative decision that was being challenged was made on the recommendation of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (¡°ABCC¡±). The Tribunal found that the ABCC was correct in rejecting the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation for injuries suffered from the car accident.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning and benefits because the case corned the Ethics Office¡¯s decision that the Applicant had not been retaliated against and not the circumstances regarding his separation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP. As for non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, high-handed and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the failures...

By deciding not to undertake the written test for the two posts, the Applicant removed the hiring manager¡¯s capacity to effectively compare her skills to that of the other candidates. By not taking the written test the Applicant effectively withdrew from the entire approved selection process and she could no longer enjoy the right of being evaluated appropriately, and against the pre-approved criteria. Consequently, none of the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached during the selection exercise for these posts. The Applicant claims that she should have been selected for either of the two posts even...

With respect to the first contested selection process, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was properly considered for it but was determined as not suitable. With respect to the second contested selection process, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Respondent¡¯s explanation that the post was not filled due to reasons not related to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy was credible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

Of the 153 candidates who applied for the post, five were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

Of the 128 candidates who applied for the post, three were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

The Tribunal has to strike a balance between the subjective and introspective feelings and perception of the aggrieved staff member with the application of reasonableness, rationality and objectivity in arriving at a fair and proper assessment of damage particularly involving the indefinable characteristics of what has been described in broad general terms as ¡°moral damage¡±.The Applicant distress and anxiety as a result of feeling extremely upset and not valued by the Organization cannot justifiably be placed at the top end of the scale of severity but rather at the lower end. This is even...

The Respondent contended that the allegations of sexual harassment had been established after a proper investigation, that the disciplinary measures were appropriate and proportionate and that the Applicant had agreed to the imposition of these disciplinary measures. The Tribunal found that: (1) The OHRM had mischaracterized the Applicant¡¯s offence as ¡°sexual harassment¡± rather than ¡°harassment¡± and failed to follow its own procedures in ¡°the Guidelines on consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the Secretariat eligible to be considered¡±; (2) There was a...

The Applicant specifically submits that the staff rules state that ¡°[c]ontinuity of service shall not be considered broken by periods of special leave¡± and the Respondent may not therefore deny his eligibility on the ground that his six months of special leave without pay resulted in him not having been employed for a continuous period of five years The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds the contested decision and finds that the Applicant is eligible for consideration for permanent appointment.