Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The application was closed after the Applicant informed the court that the Respondent had complied with the terms of their settlement agreement.

The case was closed after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The case was closed after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The case was closed after Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was informed that there had been full compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants¡¯ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

The respondent had sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant had, by altering the form, breached a fundamental requirement safeguarding the integrity of the refugee resettlement programme of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. This amounted to serious misconduct and was in breach of staff regulation 1.2. However, the failure to have due regard to independent evidence of an oppressive work environment and by not carrying out a proper investigation, as unanimously recommended in the JDC report, the Secretary-General effectively deprived himself of material which would have placed the misconduct in its proper...

The various letters of appointment that the applicant had received in the past contained a provision of non-expectancy of renewal. The applicant¡¯s main contention was that the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was an act of retaliation because he reported some allegations of financial fraud. The respondent¡¯s primary submission is that the non-renewal of the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was based on unsatisfactory performance as evidenced in some PAS reports, which had later been upheld by a rebuttal panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was...

The Tribunal found that was no breach of former staff rule 109.3(a) or 109.3(c) and the applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected. Outcome: Application dismissed.

It is not the function of the Tribunal to review the prior JAB report, but to consider whether the respondent acted properly and with due regard to the applicant¡¯s due process rights in deciding to appoint the applicant at the G-3 level. It is incumbent upon any party making serious allegations to produce supporting evidence. It was for the applicant, as a freely contracting person, to decide whether or not to accept the appointment and she did so on the basis of the clear oral and written conditions governing her appointment.Outcome: Application dismissed in its entirety.

The Tribunal does not sit as an expert review body on the classification of posts. The Tribunal has the power and a duty to consider whether the Committee acted unfairly or in anyway improperly or whether there was any failure, omission or deliberate failure by the ASG to give effect to the substance of the report and recommendations of the Committee. If there is no evidence of this, the Tribunal will not overturn a decision of the Committee. Where the applicant raises general complaints of unfairness and denial of due process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient detail...

The decision to remove the Applicant from the position of Rule of Law Project Manager: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter expects all staff members to conduct themselves in accordance with the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. Further, there is implied into every contract of employment a term of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee, which means that both parties must act responsibly and in good faith. Where the employer acts unilaterally in removing an important part of the employee¡¯s functions, the employer would have repudiated the contract of employment. The...

Outcome: The applicant succeeds. Compensation ordered for distress and loss of career development and associated benefits.

The charge relating to the unauthorized use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON ID card to gain access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ premises in Nairobi was properly brought. However, before a conclusion was reached, the decision maker was required not simply to ask whether, as a question of fact, tax and duty free purchases were made by the staff member but also whether by doing so the staff member had the mens rea to abuse Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ privileges and immunities or whether he genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds that he was entitled to have access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Commissary. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal found that on the balance of...

The Tribunal¡¯s findings were that the Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given that the Applicant failed to abide by staff regulation 1.2 (b) and former staff rule 110.1, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.

The Applicant made an application for strike out, summary judgment and transfer of the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT New York or Geneva on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest for various reasons. The Tribunal issued Order No. 28 refusing the requests for strike out, summary judgment and transfer and, in accordance with Article 19 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure (ROP), gave case management directives, which the Applicant was supposed to comply with by 4 March 2010 but he did not do so. Subsequent to the Tribunal issuing an Order to show cause, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that its...

None.

Break in service: The Tribunal has not found a policy on mandatory breaks in service and no document has been produced recording it. The respondent has failed to demonstrate a consistent application of the practice of enforced separation between temporary contracts. Further, there was a deliberate delay in progressing the appointment of the applicant which was to her detriment. Compensation: The applicant is to be placed in the position as if there had been no such break in service in May 2008. The manner in which the applicant was treated, aggravated by the exercise of an abuse of power...