Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, nor any finding by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that he had received ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for two performance cycles, and ¡°does not meet expectations¡± for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT therefore held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches ¡°for several years¡± and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was not obligated to indicate their inclination on the evidence, especially since all evidence had not yet been presented.

Considering various elements, including the Investigation Report, the WhatsApp message exchanges, and the former staff member¡¯s admissions, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Complainant¡¯s account of events credible. It concluded that the former staff member¡¯s alleged conduct of calling the Complainant to his room on 1 August 2020 and asking her to come to his bed was established by clear and convincing evidence and amounted to sexual harassment. It...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'agent ne remplissait pas les conditions requises pour la r¨¦vision de l'arr¨ºt ant¨¦rieur du TANU. Le TANU a constat¨¦ que l'agent n'avait avanc¨¦ aucun fait nouveau qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ inconnu de lui ou du TANU au moment de l'arr¨ºt pr¨¦c¨¦dent, ni aucun fait qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif pour la prise de d¨¦cision s'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ connu. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent se r¨¦sumait ¨¤ une reformulation des ¨¦l¨¦ments d¨¦j¨¤ pr¨¦sent¨¦s au TANU, qui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ examin¨¦s et rejet¨¦s, et qu'elle constituait une tentative de faire r¨¦examiner de novo le recours qui avait ¨¦t¨¦ tranch¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que les tentatives de l'agent pour plaider ¨¤ nouveau sa cause n'avaient pas permis d'identifier une quelconque erreur susceptible d'¨ºtre examin¨¦e dans le jugement du TNDU, ce qui justifiait ¨¤ lui seul le rejet de son recours. En tout ¨¦tat de cause, ind¨¦pendamment du bien-fond¨¦ de sa demande, le TANU a estim¨¦ que sa requ¨ºte ¨¦tait prescrite en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 4, du statut du TANU, puisqu'elle l'avait introduite 27 ans apr¨¨s avoir re?u la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Rappelant qu'aucun des deux tribunaux n'est habilit¨¦ ¨¤ prolonger les d¨¦lais dans ces circonstances, le...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis plusieurs erreurs de droit et de fait, conduisant ¨¤ un r¨¦sultat manifestement d¨¦raisonnable.

En particulier, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis une erreur en refusant de tenir une audition des preuves que M. Nkoyock cherchait ¨¤ appeler pour ¨¦tablir sa d¨¦fense face aux all¨¦gations port¨¦es contre lui et pour mettre en accusation les t¨¦moins du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement commis une erreur en ne parvenant pas ¨¤ tirer ses propres conclusions sur les faits contest¨¦s et en s¡¯appuyant de mani¨¨re excessive sur les conclusions de l¡¯enqu¨ºte...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General¡¯s witnesses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation¡¯s findings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a interjet¨¦ appel.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le TDNU avait outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence et commis une erreur de droit en interpr¨¦tant l'article 6(3)(a) du R¨¨glement du personnel comme autorisant Mme Barbulescu, en tant que m¨¨re commanditaire dans le cadre d'une maternit¨¦ de substitution, ¨¤ avoir droit ¨¤ un cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦, contrairement aux dispositions claires et sans ambigu?t¨¦. Statut et R¨¨glement du personnel. Le Tribunal a ¨¦largi la port¨¦e de l'article 6(3) du R¨¨glement du personnel au point de prendre une d¨¦cision politique qui rel¨¨ve de la comp¨¦tence du...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General. Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

M. Arvizu Trevino a d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d'ex¨¦cution d'un jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que plusieurs mois apr¨¨s que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ du jugement, la seule mesure prise a ¨¦t¨¦ d'obtenir des r¨¦ponses de la part de quatre membres du personnel accus¨¦s dans la plainte d'avoir commis une faute et que ? ces r¨¦ponses, parall¨¨lement aux 22 pages et 18 annexes ? de la plainte ¨¦taient en cours d¡¯examen.

Notant la justification de l'inaction du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral par le fait qu'en l'esp¨¨ce aucun d¨¦lai pr¨¦cis n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ fix¨¦ pour l'ex¨¦cution, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Administration n...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that several months after the Secretary-General had been notified of the Judgment, the only action taken was that some responses had been elicited from four staff members alleged in the complaint to have engaged in misconduct and that ¡°these responses alongside the 22 pages and 18 annexes¡± to the complaint were under review.

Noting the justification of the Secretary-General for the inaction that in the instant matter, no specific time had been set for execution, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had not acted as promptly as per the obligations imposed on it, "within a...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il y avait une nette disjonction dans la d¨¦cision du Tribunal du contentieux des Nations Unies de faire droit ¨¤ la demande de M. Nair uniquement en ce qui concerne les mesures disciplinaires (mais pas les mesures administratives), et en m¨ºme temps d¡¯annuler la d¨¦cision disciplinaire elle-m¨ºme. Le TANU a not¨¦ la confusion suscit¨¦e par la conclusion du Tribunal du Tribunal selon laquelle ? aucune faute n'a eu lieu ?, tout en admettant que M. Nair avait ? r¨¦agi et utilis¨¦ un langage hostile ¨¤ plusieurs reprises ? ce qui justifiait, de l'avis du Tribunal, l'imposition de mesures...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to grant Mr. Nair¡¯s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the confusion presented by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that ¡°no misconduct occurred at all¡±, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had ¡°repeatedly reacted and used hostile language¡± which justified, in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...