Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The new system consists of a modernization of the system in place and does not change the staff members pre-existing obligation to accurately reflect their working hours. The Applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any persuasive arguments that would result in it to consider that the implementation of the Flex Time System infringed on either his contract of employment or his terms of appointment. The implementation of a practice, which is used to address specific needs of a department, does not become discriminatory solely due to the fact that other departments within the Organization do...

The Applicant did not contest the proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a result of his impending retirement, the Applicant filed a motion requesting to withdraw his application under the understanding that he would not be able to re-litigate the present matter in the future. In light of the Applicant's withdrawal of his application the case is closed.

The Applicant has not requested any damages or a modification of the contested sanctions but rather only their rescission. The Tribunal considers that the level of disciplinary measures that were finally applied against the Applicant were taken in accordance with the rules and therefore there are no rescindable decisions. The Tribunal can also not award a remedy that was not requested by the Applicant with regard to any delay in the proceedings or the original sanction which has since been modified to comply with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The application is dismissed.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was a breach of the post selection process but that the Applicant did not suffer any damages as he did not meet one of the core competencies for the post. The Applicant has not put forward any evidence that the vitiated selection process with regard to the Post resulted in him suffering damages of any kind. Consequently, the application is granted with regard to the breach of ST/AI/2006/3 however no award of compensation is warranted.

The recovery was made on the basis that the Applicant did not complete the expected period of three months of service in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOCI upon return from his home leave. The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were not filed within the filing deadlines. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant having been found in Egglesfield Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/208 to be in continuous service, his employment remained continuous beyond three months after his return from home leave and any recovered lump sum for home leave should...

The application is filed within the statutory deadline and is therefore receivable.

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...

At no time following the decision of the rebuttal panel did the Applicant seek an informal resolution of her case which could have suspended the applicable time limits in this matter.

The timely rescission of the publication of the Letter negated any potential harm or breach of the Applicant¡¯s rights that may have occurred in the present case.; The Administration took the implicit decision of not providing the Applicant with his requested remedy to the publication of the Letter.; For the Tribunal to grant the Applicant unfettered access to iSeek for the; purpose of publishing a rebuttal letter without having it reviewed by the iSeek team to make sure that it conforms with its publishing guidelines would be akin to the Tribunal ordering a potential breach of the iSeek...

Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate ¡°from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy¡± is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...

The application is not receivable as it was not submitted to the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) within the sixty calendar days time limit in staff rule 11.2(c). The Tribunal notes that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was limited to requesting the payment of certain benefits as a result of the non-renewal of her contract and did not, as per the submission to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, contest the actual non-renewal of her contract.The Applicant did not contest the findings of the OAI report before the MEU prior to submitting them to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. These claims are therefore not properly before...

The IAMA requires the receiving organization to recognize a staff member¡¯s service in the releasing organization for ¡°credit¡± purposes. However, it does not require it to consider that the performance of the contract in the releasing organization was undertaken in a setting other than in its original one. It cannot be considered that the Applicant¡¯s contract was, prior to joining the United Nations, either under the control of the Secretary-General of the United Nations or that the Applicant had to previously answer to the United Nations staff rules. Therefore, the Applicant does not meet the...

In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU¡¯s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.

The Tribunal finds that jurisprudence does not constitute a new decisive fact.