Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged ¡°secret and retaliatory¡± investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable.

The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of...

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision of ESCAP to employ the external candidate on the maternity leave post, prior to advertising the vacancy, for the initial period of 1 February to 31 March 2011 and for one more month subsequently, while the selection process for the maternity leave post was ongoing, was lawful. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal finds that the cancellation of the second selection exercise and its subsequent recommencement were, in the circumstances, appropriate and lawful in view of the strong representations by the Staff Council and the complaints raised regarding the selection exercise. However, there were excessive and unjustifiable delays in concluding the selection process. The Organization also consistently and without just cause failed to respond to the Applicant¡¯s reasonable requests for information and action. The delays in question as well as the failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s enquiries...

The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent¡¯s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant¡¯s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent¡¯s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent¡¯s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires ¡°maximum dispatch¡± in the completion of the rebuttal process.

Judge Meeran handled the case since Judge Kaman issued the judgment on the last day of her tenure with the Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the only conclusion, which could sensibly have been drawn from the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/124 did not address the claim in explicit terms was that either Judge Kaman considered it implicitly covered in the findings or alternatively she overlooked it in her final conclusions on remedies. To the extent that it may have been an oversight, on the basis of a full examination of the record and the judgments, Judge Meeran ordered that Judge Kaman had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office¡¯s failures and/or...

Terms of settlement have been agreed between the parties. They have confirmed that the said terms have been fully executed and that there are no outstanding claims arising from the present case.

.Outcome: The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant USD10,000 in compensation for emotional harm.

Outcome: For Applicant (relief to follow).

The terms of settlement have been agreed between the parties, and the Applicant has confirmed that the said terms have been fully implemented and that there are no outstanding claims arising from the employment with the Respondent. In the circumstances, it is the judgment of the Tribunal that the case be closed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.