Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had made the Applicant applying and being selected to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF vacant post a condition for his return. The Tribunal found that by imposing such a condition to the Applicant¡¯s return, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF violated the terms of his secondment, under which the Applicant retained ¡°rights to employment¡± in the releasing organization (i.e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF). Compensation in lieu of rescission: although the chain of events lead to ending the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF, this was not the direct consequence of the contested decision, i.e., conditioning the Applicant¡¯s return to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF service after...

The legality of this decision was ruled upon by this Tribunal and, in appeal, by the Appeals Tribunal; it is thus res judicata. Supposedly, the Applicant sought to contest a new decision taken on the same issue in June 2014 (after the decision was remanded to the ASG/OHRM pursuant to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment). However, this decision was not even mentioned in the application form submitted to the Tribunal or in any of the annexes listed therein.

Neither DSS, OHRM, the CRB nor the ASG/OHRM conducted a reasoned analysis on how the date and the gravity of the disciplinary sanction impacted on the recommendation(s) and/or the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. The Administration failed to apply its own Guidelines requiring that a mandatory review of the date and gravity of the disciplinary measure applied to the Applicant be conducted and that any resulting decision include a reasoned explanation thereto.

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant had been working with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON as an independent contractor, the Tribunal held that he was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON and as such, he has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

He claims that all other retirees who had been employed were granted the maximum of 125 working days under ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2, while he was granted only 106 working days in 2013. The Chief, CTS, allegedly favored those retirees who invited him/made him gifts, while the Applicant was discriminated and retaliated, since he had reported the unethical behavior by the Chief, CTS. The Tribunal found that retirees have no ¡°right¡± to be employed for a maximum of 125 working under the terms of ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2. The Applicant failed to provide evidence that the decision was motivated by extraneous...

If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply ¡°give¡± the Applicant another position within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate...

Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant¡¯s MEU request indicated that he...

The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant¡¯s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...

Receivability - ST/SGB/2008/5 provides comprehensive procedures, both informal and formal, to a person who alleges that he or she is a victim of prohibited conduct. Although the Applicant complained that the impugned decisions amounted to an abuse of authority, he did not invoke the procedures set up to address such allegations. Accordingly there is no decision made pursuant to the ST/SGB for the Tribunal to review.

The Tribunal ruled that the transfer within the recipient organization does not fall within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction and that, hence, the application was irreceivable ratione materiae in this respect. Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF's alleged failure to intervene to prevent the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, while conceding that the Organization has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its employees, the Tribunal found that such duty had not been breached in this case, since the Applicant informed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF of her reassignment only a few days before she ceased being a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF staff member following her inter-organization...

The Tribunal found that within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, the authority to place a staff member on SLWFP rests with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Executive Director, and that his authority was not duly delegated to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Official. In view of that, the Tribunal concluded that the decision-maker did not have the competence to take the contested decision, ordered its rescission and awarded USD1,000 to the Applicant as moral damages for the breach of her rights due to that fundamental procedural flaw. The compensation was restricted to the fact that the Applicant had stated on several occasions that while she did contest the...

ReceivabilityThe placement of a staff member on administrative leave is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. It is an administrative decision for the purposes of art. 8.1 (c) of the Statute and within the well settled meaning of an administrative action as laid down in Andronov. The Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to determine the validity of an administrative decision unless it has been first referred to the Management Evaluation Unit pursuant to art.11.2 of the Staff Rules. In the absence of management evaluation of the decision to place the Applicant on administrative leave...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision was in violation of an express written promise of renewal for three months by the head of her mission.

Moral Damages ¨C The need for compensation must be demonstrated by evidence of damages or injuries. The grounds that support an award for moral damages include delay, frustration, distress and anxiety. Damages for moral injury may arise from a breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed or where there is evidence produced of harm, stress or anxiety caused to the staff member which can be directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his or her...

The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent¡¯s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant¡¯s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...

There are two aspects to the evidential burden resting on a staff member who claims dependency benefits for his/her child or children where he/she is not the custodial parent. The first aspect relates to the nature of the evidence required and the second aspect concerns the degree of proof required. As for the nature of the evidence required, a staff member will have discharged the evidential burden once he/she has presented documentation pertaining to the existence of the child or children, a divorce decree and proof of custody, proof of payment and the amounts paid and the means of payment...

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal held that in matters relating to Appendix D of the Staff Rules it has jurisdiction to determine: (i) whether the ABCC correctly followed the procedure applicable to medical claims; (ii) whether it properly directed its mind to the relevant issues; and (iii) whether the evidence on which it based its determination was adequate or flawed. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to make any such assessment and to substitute its own evaluation for the one reached by an expert body like the ABCC. Request for reconsideration: The Tribunal found that...

Receivability: The Tribunal held that the Applicants had standing pursuant to art. 2.1 of its Statute and found the applications receivable. Merits: Was the restructuring genuine? The Tribunal found that, although the retrenchment exercise resulted in the non-renewal of the Applicants¡¯ appointments, the motivation for it was genuine as it implemented General Assembly resolution 66/264. Was the restructuring implemented through a fair and lawful process? Consultations: The Tribunal found that the Administration did not consult the staff or staff representatives about the posts to be abolished...

The Tribunal found that the applications were receivable since the contested decisions produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal further found that the chosen period of retroactive application of one year was not only unlawful because it was based on a misconstruction and misapplication of staff rule 3.16 but it was manifestly unreasonable, irrational, and above all unjustifiably discriminatory. It did not amount to a proper exercise of administrative discretion and breached the fundamental principle of equal pay...