Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Termination for misconduct vs. termination for facts anterior: Termination on the basis of staff regulation 9.3(a)(v) and staff rule 9.6(c)(v) is not to be confused with a measure involving separation as a result of disciplinary proceedings, including in cases where the facts in question could have constituted misconduct. Neither the procedure, nor the standard of proof is to be transposed from one to the other. Regarding in particular the standard of proof applicable to ¡°facts anterior¡±, in the absence of a clear applicable legal norm or ruling of the Appeals Tribunal, it may not be assumed...

Full and fair consideration: In the absence of concrete, convincing evidence, the mere fact that it is possible, theoretically, to alter/tamper a written test will not suffice for the Tribunal to conclude that an Applicant¡¯s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Also, where no one of the people involved in the administration of the test had a motive to manipulate it, the Tribunal will not find that the decision had been influenced by extraneous factors. The burden of proof in these matters lies on the Applicant. Good management practice: The Administration should take measures...

The best interests of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR were clearly not served by the removal of the Applicant. It is unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe that some members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior management sought to hide behind the veil of acting in the Organization¡¯s best interests to act in their own self-interest. The Tribunal therefore found on that score that the Respondent¡¯s explanation were a mere afterthought which was only spun to defend an action that was clearly lacking in due process and constituted an unfair and highhanded removal of the Applicant and abuse of official discretion. The Tribunal was not in any doubt that the removal of...

In light of the parties¡¯ agreement, the Tribunal accordingly entered judgment as follows: a) The Applicant would be paid four months¡¯ net base salary at the level he encumbered prior to his separation from service on 9 August 2013. b) The Applicant would be paid eight months¡¯ net base salary at the level he encumbered prior to his separation from service on 9 August 2013, less the USD equivalent of EUR59,000 calculated as specified below. c) Pursuant to rule 106.5(a) of the United Nations¡¯ Financial Regulations and Rules, the operational rate of exchange, as established by the Under-Secretary...

Whilst the prescribed form refers to ¡°judgments¡± and not ¡°orders¡±, the Tribunal found that this is a matter of form and not substance. The Tribunal found that the suspension of action Order No. 276 (NY/2016) was dispositive of the case at the time, and it also found that the motion under review submitted by way of a motion for correction of a judgment on Form Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/F.8E rev. 1 of July 2011 was receivable. The Tribunal considered whether, since the Applicant was requesting para. 13 of Order 276 be modified to include a subsequent occurrence, a revision was warranted under art. 29 of the Dispute...

Request for management evaluation: A request for management evaluation has a precise and specific meaning in the framework of the Organization¡¯s internal justice system. It is the first step in formal contestation of an administrative decision and, as such, a mere communication conveying discontent to ¡°management¡± does not amount to a formal management evaluation request. Management evaluation is a formal process involving a request to the body specifically vested with the authority to look into a contested decision, to consider whether it conformed with the applicable rules of the...

The procedure for conducting investigations of allegations of harassment and abuse of authority by staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF is set out in Administrative Instruction CF/EXD/2012-007. The Applicant provided no evidence that the CF/EXD/2012-007 procedures were not complied with in relation to his case. The undisputed evidence before the Tribunal was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s independent OIAI discussed the allegations with the Applicant but concluded that it did not merit a comprehensive review and was not a well-founded allegation of prohibited conduct. It proposed alternative recourse, which the Applicant...

The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that its authority to suspend or waive the time limits set forth in art. 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute did not extend to deadlines for management evaluation. These deadlines cannot be waived notwithstanding whether the failing of the deadline would have been occasioned by confusing information received from the Administration. As provided in staff rule 11.2(c), the deadline for requesting management evaluation may only be extended by the Secretary-General pending efforts for informal resolution conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, under conditions specified...

Due diligence: A delay in payment of an entitlement under the Staff Rules and Regulations can constitute a violation of a general principle of due diligence and good faith towards staff members, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which is a structural principle of good management practice. Undue delay: In order to assess whether a delay in payment of an entitlement is undue, the Tribunal will look into the time payment would have taken had normal workflows been respected. A delay of eleven months in payment of an entitlement is undue and may warrant compensation provided the...

The Tribunal granted the application is part and awarded the Applicant USD4,000 in compensation for procedural violations.

The Applicant was informed of the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew her appointment on 13 May 2015 thus the time to challenge this decision started to run from this date. The Applicant requested management evaluation on 28 August 2015.; A later notice to the Applicant on 30 June 2015 merely affirmed that the earlier decision remained in force.; The application was late in light of staff rule 11.2(c), as it was filed past the sixty-day time limit, and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

Request for management evaluation: A request for management evaluation has a precise and specific meaning in the framework of the internal justice system. It is the first step in formal contestation of an administrative decision and, as such, a communication conveying discontent to management will amount to a management evaluation request. Management evaluation is a formal process involving a request to the competent authority, which is specifically empowered to look into a contested decision to evaluate and consider whether it has been made pursuant to the administrative issuances of the...

The Respondent withdrew from the impugned decision to change the Applicant¡¯s functional title from Team Assistant to Language Assistant. Accordingly, the claim was moot at the time of the filing of the application and therefore not receivable. With respect to the decision to remove the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the Litani magazine the Tribunal found that this claim was not the subject of management evaluation and therefore not receivability. With respect to the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the impugned decision entailed a change in the Applicant¡¯s place, her...

Temporary reassignment: The characteristic of a temporary reassignment is its limited duration. From the outset, it is clear that it has an expiration date and that, unless renewed by a subsequent discretionary decision, it will come to an end naturally on the date specified for this purpose. The natural outcome of a temporary assignment is the staff member¡¯s return to his/her original duties. Accordingly, a staff member on temporary reassignment has no entitlement or legal expectancy to have such reassignment extended. The decision not to extend a temporary reassignment is within the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration¡¯s failure to timey conclude its investigation was an act of omission and an implied administrative decision receivable by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The personal crisis of one investigator did not account for the entire three years nor justify the Administration¡¯s failure to take corrective measures to control the delay. The excessive delay breached fairness and the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Further, the Administrations¡¯ failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s multiple reasonable follow up queries spanning three years constituted a breach of duty owed the Applicant...

The irregularities in the investigative process were egregious and warranted compensation. In addition, during the three years the investigation was delayed, the subject was no longer with the Organization, making it not possible to convene a new investigation.Relief: The Tribunal found the Applicant suffered emotional harm in having to prosecute his complaint for three years, harm to his reputation, and that such harm was demonstrated by the Applicant at trial and observed by the Judge as trier of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the decision of the responsible official to close the case was improper as...

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be exercised if the contested administrative decision has previously been submitted for management evaluation, where required, and it is not open to the Tribunal to waive this requirement or make any exception to it. As a consequence, in the absence of a management evaluation, the Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable.

Disclosure: The Respondent¡¯s disclosure obligation in proceedings concerning appointment and promotion is twofold. Firstly, the Respondent shall produce evidence to satisfy his own burden to minimally show that the staff member¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. Secondly, the Respondent shall disclose any document in his possession that is relevant to the determination of the Applicant¡¯s case, as presented in his or her application. This duty of candour that falls on the Respondent is necessary to ensure that staff members have access to justice. When the Respondent fails to...

The Tribunal found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS was incorrect when it restricted applicants to the TJO to staff already employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS since the Applicant was an internal candidate. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for the TJO was unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to be fully and fairly considered for the post. The Tribunal found the application receivable and that the contested decision not to find the Applicant eligible for the TJO and the related decision to continue the selection process were unlawful and breached the Applicant¡¯s right to a full...

The Applicant failed to file a request for management evaluation of the nonrenewal decision within the applicable deadline. This claim was not receivable. The Applicant had in his management evaluation request of 12 July 2015 already accomplished the requirements set out in CF/EXD/2012-007 in relation to his complaints of bullying, harassment, intimidation and abuse of authority against his supervisor and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Country Representative. As held in Kadri, the Applicant was entitled to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his application. The Applicant¡¯s claims in relation to the...