Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the application, insofar as it contests the SPA decision and the Reclassification decision, is not receivable. The Applicant submitted his SPA claim three years too late, therefore, his claim is timebarred. As the Applicant never requested reclassification, there is no final administrative decision regarding reclassification. Without a final administrative decision regarding classification, the Dispute Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the Reclassification decision. The Tribunal found that the ToRs decision was lawful on the basis that the Administration...

Public interest, transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not impaired by the removal of the Applicant¡¯s name from the public domain. Consequently, and taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the facts, which involve alleged ¡°sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person¡±, the Tribunal grants the Applicant¡¯s request for anonymity. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, communicated to him on 23 September 2019, is not grounded on disciplinary considerations, which were the subject of the instant case, and constitutes an autonomous administrative decision...

Receivability The Applicant did not request management evaluation of the following contested decisions: 1) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action in relation to her complaint; 2) Undue delays in the investigation, in the initiation and conducting of a disciplinary process, and in taking the final decision on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against her former supervisors; and 3) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action to protect her from sexual harassment in her workplace environment and to remedy the harm suffered. Moreover, the Tribunal is not...

No new evidence is to be filed by the parties with their closing submission and pursuant to the principle of equality of arms, both parties must have the opportunity to test the evidence on record. Disciplinary proceedings within the Organization do not amount to criminal procedures. Use of video footage from an external entity during the investigation is not illegal as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHC rules provide that investigators may avail themselves of external supporting evidence. Sick leave requests must be approved by a staff member¡¯s service/Human Resources section or the respective Medical Service. The...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not established that there was any bias or impropriety which had any impact on the decision not to renew his appointment. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had not provided any information which would assist in production of relevant information and the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to embark upon a full investigation of the matter and could only rely on what had been made available pursuant to its case management powers. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager¡¯s actions has been rebutted and that...

Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration¡¯s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1120, para. 28). The...

The Tribunal ruled that the assertion that the Applicant was entitled to automatic appointment since he had a continuous appointment and was on the roster for Senior Transport Officer, P-5 was without basis. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the obligation under staff rule 9.6(e) is only triggered where there has been a decision to terminate a staff member¡¯s appointment due to the abolition of a post or the reduction of staff. The Tribunal found that the provisions of staff rule 9.6(e) were not applicable to the circumstances of this case and could therefore not be complied with...

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. When she...

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal The Applicant appears to argue that the Administration created an expectancy of renewal of his contract by referring to statements, allegedly made by various individuals of the Organization. The individuals concerned dispute the facts as presented by the Applicant and he has not adduced any written evidence regarding a firm commitment to renewal. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°[i]n order for a staff member¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s motivations for accepting his appointment to the P-3 post have no bearing on the lawfulness of the decision. The Applicant was cautioned in advance of his right to apply for other vacant posts, and he voluntarily decided to apply for a lower-level post. The Applicant, upon selection for the P-3 level post, was cautioned that he would be appointed at the P-3 level regardless of the grade of the post he encumbered at the time. This course of action was open to the Organization under Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s staffing policy. The Applicant then proceeded to accept this...

The Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...

Since the Applicant in this case is separated, he can no longer be reassigned, as he requests. The application is therefore moot.

Article 18.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure provides that a party wishing to submit evidence that is in the possession of the opposing party or of any other entity may, in the initial application or at any stage of the proceedings, request the Dispute Tribunal to order the production of the evidence. That the Applicant chose to obtain the documents outside the Tribunal process must be frowned upon. Because of the method the Applicant used to obtain the documents, their authenticity let alone their probative value cannot be guaranteed. The documents in issued were therefore ruled inadmissible...

That the Applicant chose to obtain the documents outside the Tribunal process must be frowned upon. Because of the method the Applicant used to obtain the documents, their authenticity let alone their probative value cannot be guaranteed. The documents in issue were therefore ruled inadmissible. The Tribunal held that the ALWOP decision was based on the criteria set out in section 11.4 b of ST/AI/2017/1. In the Tribunal¡¯s view, based on the nature of the allegations (the public engagement in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle in a heavily trafficked area of Tel...

The application was not receivable ratione temporis because it should have been filed on or before 11 November 2021 but was filed on 1 December 2021.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not offered any statement, or evidence, which would contradict the fundamental findings of the disciplinary process regarding the objective element of the impugned conduct, that is, that he made requests largely based upon incorrect information. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested the decision. The Tribunal also established that the Applicant acted in violation of staff regulations 1.2(b) and 1.2(q), and staff rule 1.7 and hence his actions amounted to...

The Applicant was sanctioned for: (a) misuse of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s ICT resources and (b) harassment and abuse of authority in relation to her treatment of some vendor employees. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established Since the Applicant does not dispute the underlying facts of the first charge (access of former personnel's ICT resources without authorization), the Tribunal finds that these facts have been established to the required standard. Regarding the second charge, the Tribunal finds that the evidence establishes the following facts: a. The Applicant...

The Tribunal concludes that the contested decision, lawful or not, does not result from a disciplinary process and is therefore not exempted from management evaluation. Accordingly, in application of staff rule 11.2, the Applicant ought to have requested management evaluation before filing his appeal before this Tribunal. Having failed to do so, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.