Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant does not contest a decision of the Secretary-General but a decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, which he claims was communicated to him by the Chief of the Office of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF at Geneva. The Tribunal has already stated in the past that it is not competent to review Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF is an entity established to provide retirement, death, disability and related benefits for the staff of its various member organizations. The Secretary-General has no role in the administration of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF benefits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF is also not one of the agencies, organizations or entities ¡°where a special agreement...

The Tribunal granted the application in part as the reasons provided for the Applicant¡¯s termination, notably end of appointment and abolition of post, were incorrect and therefore unlawful (the decision was rather based on the Applicant¡¯s health). As relief, the Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s request for pecuniary compensation consisting in net-base salary from her separation date and until her retirement and ordered that the Applicant should also receive compensation in the amount equal to the contributions (staff member¡¯s and the Organization¡¯s) that would have been paid to the United...

The disciplinary sanction was based on the finding that he had made a material misrepresentation on several personal history forms when applying for jobs. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it has been established that on three occasions¡ªsometime in or around October 2011, on 25 March 2005 and on 21 February 2007¡ªthe Applicant¡¯s personal history forms incorrectly indicated he did not have ¡°relatives employed by a public international organization¡±, whereas his brother was in fact employed by the United Nations until 8 December 2008. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the established facts did not amount to...

The Tribunal granted the application in part and awarded the Applicant USD18,000 in moral damages: USD3,000 for each of the six RC position for which she applied in her August and November 2013 job applications (the appeal against other non-selection decisions was not found receivable as it had been made out of time). When assessing the Applicant¡¯s relevant applications, it was unlawful for the EG to not nominate the Applicant as this decision was based on her 2012 performance appraisal report, which, at the given time, was still under rebuttal, and not on the last three performance appraisal...

The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...

Request for reconsideration of an administrative decision - According to the applicable rules and consistent with the principle of expeditiousness in administrative proceedings, a request for reconsideration of the decision by the first instance administrative organ does not have a suspensive effect on the deadlines for management evaluation.

The Applicant, a former P-3 level staff member of MINUSTAH, sought rescission of the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract. The Respondent asserted that non-renewal was lawful since the Applicant was provisionally reassigned to MINUSTAH when MINURCAT was downsized and his provisional reassignment was contingent upon him receiving FCRB clearance. As the Applicant never received FCRB clearance, his contract was not renewed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, following his initial offer, the Applicant received 12 subsequent letters of appointment which did not expressly or by reference refer to him...

The Tribunal found that, although the decision to appoint a new panel emanated indeed from the Administration, it did not amount to an appealable administrative decision because it was merely preparatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it. Discretionary and not discretionary decisions: The well-established definition of administrative decision does not even mention¡ªlet alone require¡ªany given degree of discretion among the elements characterising it. Administrative decisions may be discretionary or not discretionary, and this does not affect their...

The Tribunal noted that the relinquishment of the Applicant¡¯s post was not imposed upon her by the Administration. It occurred at her own initiative and of her free will. It found that the termination decision was lawful and rejected the application. Termination of an FTA: The FTA of a staff member who signed an agreement relinquishing the lien on his/her regular post and, hence, who has no post to return to, can be terminated on the basis of that agreement. The Administration has no duty to make good faith efforts to place that staff member against a suitable post beyond the terms of the...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the relevant rules were followed and found that the Applicant failed to show evidence that the decision was based on extraneous factors. It concluded that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration and rejected the application. Written test: Where an Applicant successfully passed an anonymous written test, but is subsequently eliminated at the stage of the interview, the question of who should have designed and corrected the written test in a selection process is not determinant for the outcome of the selection process vis-¨¤-vis the Applicant. Any...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was a former staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIDO. While the Applicant had no locus standi before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, his case would have been properly filed either with ILOAT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

Receivability - Article 7.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure requires that any application seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement must be filed within 90 calendar days of the last day for implementation as specified in the agreement and where dates for the implementation are not stated, the application must be filed within thirty calendar days of the signing of the settlement agreement.An examination of the Settlement Agreement between the parties shows that no date was stipulated for its implementation. Any application challenging it must therefore be brought within 30 days...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the facts in this case have not been established to the required standard, that is, the alleged misconduct has not been established by clear and convincing evidence. The Respondent¡¯s case was based on inconclusive evidence linked together by certain inferences and assumptions, without other possible explanations having been given due weight and consideration. As the facts have not been established, the Applicant¡¯s actions cannot be classified as misconduct and no disciplinary measures should have been applied to the Applicant. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that this case was not marred by...

Taking into consideration the Respondent¡¯s response that the internal processes had not yet reached finality, the Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter until such time as all applicable and relevant procedures had been concluded. Consequently, the application was deemed premature and dismissed as irreceivable.

The fact-finding panel established that the allegations were well founded and the conduct in question amounted to possible misconduct. In the circumstances, the mandatory language of section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 required a referral to the ASG/OHRM for disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures. Failure to make such a referral on the part of the Head of Mission was an error of procedure which denied the Applicant his contractual right to be afforded the benefit and protection against prohibited conduct in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. The Administration...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was change of official duty station and that, as a result, the application of Entebbe¡¯s post adjustment rate and payment of DSA for only 30 days were lawful. The Tribunal also dismissed all the other Applicant¡¯s contentions. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal examined the receivability of the application given that the parties disagreed on the date on which the Applicant ought to have known of the decision. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. Receivability ¨C Notification of an administrative decision: The Administration is obliged to communicate...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis as both the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and his application before the Tribunal were time-barred. Receivability: A new administrative decision that supersedes the contested decision cannot be submitted to the Tribunal¡¯s review through additional submissions in the case under consideration. It ought to be challenged through another application before the Tribunal. The deadline to file a request for management evaluation starts from the moment the staff member was made aware of the...

The Applicant did not comply with the requirement of staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation within the period of 60 days from the date of notification of the decision. The deadline expired on 12 January 2014, but she requested management evaluation on 12 February 2014.

The Tribunal found that the case was one of termination of mandate, rather than of abolition of post under the relevant rules; hence, the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment was illegal. It further decided that even if one were to follow the Respondent¡¯s argument that it was post abolition, such abolition needed the approval of the Board of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICRI which had not been obtained. Finally, following the argument that it was post abolition, the Tribunal noted that the Administration clearly failed to comply with its obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under...

The Tribunal found established that the Hiring Manager had a certain bias against candidates who, like the Applicant, were already working at the Division when she joined it as its Director. However, this bias did not crystallise so as to have had an impact on the Applicant¡¯s candidature as all candidates¡¯ tests were rated on an anonymity basis by four panel members. The Administration made a minimal showing that the procedure had been proper by following a protocol designed to ensure the candidates¡¯ anonymity until after the written test was graded and, hence, the burden of proving that the...