Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not based on improper motives as had been alleged by the Applicant. Rather, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP had acted farily and transparently. Thus the Tribunal held that there was no illegality, irrationality and unfairness in the impugned decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had no authority to demand a performance guarantee from an NGO Coordinator and that the Applicant¡¯s intention was not to keep a performance guarantee, but rather to obtain a bribe from the NGO Coordinator. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was not convinced of the probative value of the alleged handwritten note which the Applicant claimed was evidence of his intention to request a performance guarantee. On the issue of the Applicant returning the alleged performance guarantee, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the real intention of the Applicant and the Senior Programme Assistant was to avoid the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily decided not to admit the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordinator¡¯s testimony into evidence, holding that it was not required because the case record already contained relevant evidence in relation to the facts in which he had been involved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the evidence showed that neither the Applicant nor the Senior Programme Officer were involved in the implementation of the project. In fact, a Senior Reintegration Officer had overall responsibility for it as he requested an operational advance and, consequently, was personally responsible for the funds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Non-selection The job responsibilities of the post the Applicant applied for and the post occupied by her spouse, who both report to the same supervisor, are closely related. The Organization reasonably determined that the appointment of the Applicant to the post would create an actual or possible conflict of interest due to her marriage to her spouse. The decision was also procedurally compliant since, contrary to the Applicant¡¯s argument, the decision did not require a prior review by the Compliance Review Body and the hiring manager. The decision was not irrational or arbitrary just because...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...

The Respondent¡¯s argument that the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within 60 days was rooted in the erroneous belief that the MOU, which expressly states that it constituted notice that the Applicant¡¯s appointment would not be renewed beyond 29 February 2020 and that she would be separated as a result, related to the Applicants general right to be reabsorbed into MINUSMA. The right to a general lien is intrinsic to a secondment, meaning that it is inalienable and so the Applicant could not have contracted herself out of it. The notice of separation and...

Although the Organization¡¯s payment of the Applicant¡¯s final entitlements into the wrong bank account was a serious irregularity, the Tribunal concluded that the irregularity did not obliterate the fact that the Organization discharged its final payment obligation toward the Applicant because the payment was made into the Applicant¡¯s account on record. This mistake did not cause financial damage to the Applicant but rather resulted in a reduction of his personal liabilities. Further, the Applicant had had several opportunities to authorize the return of the funds to the Organization, and thus...

While the schedule set for the written assessment was probably inconvenient for the Applicant. However, he did not even attempt to provide a reason, neither when he was notified of the assessment¡¯s schedule nor in his application, why it was not possible for him to take the test. He simply asked for the test to be rescheduled to coincide with the working hours at his location. The reason provided by the Administration for not being able to accommodate different schedules, namely the avoidance of leaks, is fair and reasonable.Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s decision not to participate in the...

The established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. There was evidence that the totality of the circumstances, including mitigating factors such as the Applicant¡¯s long service with the Organization and her admission, albeit only after the Organization¡¯s discovery of her fraud, were considered in keeping with set principles. There was basis for the assertion that the practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters shows that measures at the stricter end of the spectrum have normally been imposed by the Organization in cases involving falsification of...

The Applicant¡¯s appointment rested with the Human Resources Section and not the DMS, the mere recommendation by the latter of extension of the contract did not constitute a firm commitment for the Organization under the applicable jurisprudence, nor did the extension of his ground pass, which is a mere organizational permission. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term appointment. The Applicant¡¯s post was among those whose unique function was to be abolished in the affected unit and therefore, deemed to be a ¡°dry cut¡±...

The contested decision fell within the Administration¡¯s margin of appreciation and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. Under the applicable legal framework, the Applicant is not entitled to force the Administration to investigate her complaint. To the contrary, the responsible official is provided with a discretion to initiate or not to initiate an investigation under the applicable legal framework. The decisionmaker reasonably decided not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint in light of the alleged harasser¡¯s resignation. The decision was also procedurally compliant as the...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...

Non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment due to the lack of funding The proffered reason for the non-renewal is supported by evidence. The post encumbered by the Applicant was funded by funds received under service level agreements, and the Applicant¡¯s salary in 2016-19 were fully covered by a specific service level agreement, whose contributions were reduced to the extent that they were insufficient to cover the Applicant¡¯s salary. The Applicant questioned why other staff members were not affected by the reduction of funding, but none of the other staff members¡¯ salary was fully...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...

After the Applicant¡¯s separation, she is not entitled to receive any further assistance from the Organization with respect to the renewal of her passport. Therefore, the Administration¡¯s lack of response did not have an impact on the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment. This decision is therefore non-receivable. The Applicant has neither been repatriated nor traveled outside the duty station because she failed to provide the required information. There is therefore no decision from the Administration not to repatriate the Applicant which is capable of judicial review. A staff member¡¯s privileges...

It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to evaluate the correctness of the contested decision but rather examine whether the Administration respected the bounds of its discretionary power in reaching it. While the Applicant alleged that evidence was ignored and that OIOS investigators were biased against him, he provided no detail in support of these assertions. Tribunal was satisfied that OIOS interviewed all relevant witnesses with respect to the incidents of alleged sexual misconduct and reviewed the available documentation. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the conclusion that the...

It is clear from ST/AI/1999/9 and the 11 February 2019 interoffice memorandum: (a) that sending a note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General when selecting a male candidate instead of a suitable female colleague is a mandatory requirement as the verb ¡°shall¡± is used (b) that for ¡°review and discussion¡±, the relevant note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General is to be submitted before¡ªand not after¡ªany selection decision is taken and (c) that in this note, the hiring entity is to explain and document why the ¡°recommended¡± male candidate is ¡°clearly superior¡± to any...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety In determining the date when the three-year statutory period under art. 8.4 of its Statute should run from, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°a written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly, and strictly, calculated. Where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability, ratione temporis¡± (see Manco 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-342, para. 20). Without receiving a notification of a decision in writing, it would not be possible to determine when the period of three years for contesting the...

The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.