51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that there was change of official duty station and that, as a result, the application of Entebbe¡¯s post adjustment rate and payment of DSA for only 30 days were lawful. The Tribunal also dismissed all the other Applicant¡¯s contentions. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal examined the receivability of the application given that the parties disagreed on the date on which the Applicant ought to have known of the decision. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. Receivability ¨C Notification of an administrative decision: The Administration is obliged to communicate...

The UNDT found that the application was irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis as both the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and his application before the Tribunal were time-barred. Receivability: A new administrative decision that supersedes the contested decision cannot be submitted to the Tribunal¡¯s review through additional submissions in the case under consideration. It ought to be challenged through another application before the Tribunal. The deadline to file a request for management evaluation starts from the moment the staff member was made aware of the...

The Applicant did not comply with the requirement of staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation within the period of 60 days from the date of notification of the decision. The deadline expired on 12 January 2014, but she requested management evaluation on 12 February 2014.

The Tribunal found that the case was one of termination of mandate, rather than of abolition of post under the relevant rules; hence, the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment was illegal. It further decided that even if one were to follow the Respondent¡¯s argument that it was post abolition, such abolition needed the approval of the Board of UNICRI which had not been obtained. Finally, following the argument that it was post abolition, the Tribunal noted that the Administration clearly failed 51ÁÔÆæ its obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under...

The Tribunal found established that the Hiring Manager had a certain bias against candidates who, like the Applicant, were already working at the Division when she joined it as its Director. However, this bias did not crystallise so as to have had an impact on the Applicant¡¯s candidature as all candidates¡¯ tests were rated on an anonymity basis by four panel members. The Administration made a minimal showing that the procedure had been proper by following a protocol designed to ensure the candidates¡¯ anonymity until after the written test was graded and, hence, the burden of proving that the...

Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...

Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...

The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific categories of decisions: those taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies and...

The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights had been respected, that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established and amounted to misconduct, and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the offence, and rejected the application. Misconduct: Under the relevant rules, misrepresentation, forgery or false certification in connection with an official claim or benefit¡ªwhich can include failure to disclose a fact material to that claim or benefit¡ªcan be ¡°wilful, reckless or grossly negligent¡±. Gross negligence is defined as ¡°an extreme or aggravated...

Compensation for moral injury - A staff member whose fundamental or other rights are infringed upon by the agents of the Respondent is entitled to have an effective remedy granted by this Tribunal. The Administration¡¯s duty to respect fundamental human rights - What happened to the Applicant in the process of her forced eviction by the agents of UNMISS in the morning of 11 November 2011 constituted not only human rights violations but also criminal and civil wrongs. The forceful and unlawful eviction additionally violated Article17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, UNAT held that UNDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, UNAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT...

UNAT held that there was no provision in the Staff Regulations or Rules stating that the Secretary-General¡¯s discretionary authority to issue a written reprimand as a non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2(b) (i) was predicated upon and limited to the existence of an ongoing employment contract. UNAT found that to hold otherwise would render baseless those standards of conduct that survive active service. In addition, UNAT held that, from a practical perspective, it would stymie the Secretary-General¡¯s ability and discretionary authority to properly manage investigations and...

UNAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of UNAT¡¯s competence. UNAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...

UNAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the management evaluation decision was issued. UNAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

UNAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the respective management evaluation was issued. UNAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and found that UNDT erred in law and fact by awarding a remedy to Mr Nwuke. UNAT held that the violation of Mr Nwuke¡¯s due process rights did not, in and of itself, entitle him to an award of damages and that there was no evidence of any pecuniary loss or harm suffered by Mr Nwuke as a result of said violation. Moreover, UNAT held that not every violation of a staff member¡¯s right will necessarily lead to an award of compensation and there are no legal grounds that can justify such an award when no actual prejudice is found. UNAT accordingly...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, which was limited to a challenge of UNDT¡¯s method of calculating the compensation awarded to Mr Nyasulu as an alternative to the rescission. UNAT noted that Mr Nyasulu presumably had no objection to the compensation being re-calculated, as he did not rebut the appeal. UNAT found that it had no option but to remand the case as, in order to rule on the Secretary-General¡¯s request, it would first need to be satisfied that UNDT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission was not correct. UNAT held that that could not be done because UNDT gave...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with UNDT. UNAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. UNAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...