Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal dismissed the motion and found the application not receivable ratione temporis because (a) it was filed outside the applicable 90-day time limit as provided for by art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Statute and (b) no extraordinary circumstances prevailed.

The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The rejection of creating a ¡°separate case¡± for the Applicant¡¯s motion for interim relief in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The application is now moot. The Applicant has essentially received the relief sought, as the decision has been rescinded and his claim is being reconsidered. On this matter, he could not have been granted greater relief by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its power under art. 9 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure to summarily dismiss the application, but noting that no decision has been made on its merits.

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect to the 2011¨C2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT deemed it appropriate to decide on the application, without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply. The Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the contested decision, but failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not comply with his obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d) to find the Applicant an alternative post. Termination of appointment: A termination of a contract of employment by reason of restructuring of the workplace is lawful provided that the Organization discharges fully its duty and obligations towards the displaced staff member in accordance with the applicable law; the latter, in the case of termination of a permanent appointment for abolition of post, is staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Duty of...

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case created a situation in which a fair-minded observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility that the presence of that senior official on the interview panel would lead to a reasonable perception of bias. It was thus unreasonable for that Panel member not to, at least, have raised the matter of a perceived conflict of interest with the panel and, ultimately, not to have recused himself from sitting on it. However, since there was no evidence that the presence of the senior manager had an impact on the outcome of the selection process...

The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to fulfil its obligations by not making timely payments to the Applicant under art. 11.2(d) of Appendix D for the two periods concerned, and that the amounts paid to the Applicant did not compensate him for the delay in payment as they should have. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant material damages in the amount of USD29,261.86 plus CHF10,544.50, and compensation for any additional taxes due by the Applicant, upon presentation of his tax declarations to the Respondent, resulting from the receipt of a lump sum of USD72,266.46 in 2015, instead of...

The hiring manager for the contested position had determined that the Applicant did not fully meet the work experience requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal did not consider that the assessment of the hiring manager that the Applicant had not provided evidence of the relevant work experience was clearly erroneous or unreasonable so as to constitute an error of fact. In addition, after considering ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system) and the Manual for the Hiring Manager on the Staff Selection System, the Tribunal found that there was no error of law when the hiring manager conducted...

The Tribunal issued a summary judgment dismissing the application as premature and not receivable. The Applicant had not waited for the outcome of his request for management evaluation or the expiration of the 30-day time limit for the Management Evaluation Unit to respond to the request.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

United Nations core competency of Communication - Due to sheer incompetence and inefficiency, the Respondent¡¯s agents did not exhibit professionalism when they failed in their duty to give proper, timely and accurate information regarding his employment and health status to the Applicant. They failed also to exhibit the core competency of communication which is required of every staff member. Requirement to file a management evaluation request - The new claims the Applicant sought to be allowed to introduce as part of this case which was instituted in 2012 are separate and distinct issues...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered all arguments made on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both of the Appellant¡¯s cases in their judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant¡¯s complaints was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant¡¯s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson¡¯s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no basis for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that ¡°no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson¡¯s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ¡± Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...