Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of ¡°administrative decision¡± within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...

On delegation on authority, the Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity avoids the need for proof absent a prima facie case. This argument is entirely correct. The Respondent was required to and submitted email correspondence between the ASG/OHRM and the USG/DMSPC regarding this case. In that correspondence, the ASG/OHRM attaches her recommendation to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, along with a ¡°detailed analysis in the body to the recommendation.¡± In response, the USG/DMSPC writes¡°Recommendation approved.¡± The Tribunal was therefore convinced that the contested...

The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the ¡°non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds¡±. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was ¡°due to lack of funds¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Field Office (¡°CFO¡±) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, ¡°Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter¡±. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.

The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of ¡°D¡±. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant¡¯s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

Receivability

The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.

First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.

Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui¡¯s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an ¡°administrative decision¡± and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Administration had initiated a preliminary investigation into the staff member¡¯s conduct with regard to the ostensible theft of cash from the office safe, reached agreements with him regarding repayment, and then sought initiation of criminal proceedings by filing a criminal complaint and delivering him to the local police. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because the underlying facts of the case involved his conduct as a United Nations staff member towards his employer, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have been competent to review his application on the merits, had it been timely filed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS staff members were not made by a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS official with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member¡¯s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination of the former staff member¡¯s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that his ex-wife¡¯s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar in her letter. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...