51ÁÔÆæ

The investigation against the Applicant lacked integrity and credibility. The investigator was incompetent, exhibited bias and lacked objectivity and fairness. The Investigator¡¯s note-taker was not only allowed to conduct part of the investigation by solely administering questions to two witnesses, she was also allowed the liberty of expressing her views on how some evidence she had elicited from a witness should not change impressions earlier formed. The investigation report was biased, unreliable and unfair. The characterisation of certain facts was done in a manner intended to draw only...

Reasons for non-renewal: While the Administration is not bound to provide a staff member with the reasons for the non-renewal of his or her appointment, when the staff member contests before the Tribunal the legality of the non-renewal decision, holding that the motives behind were unlawful, the Administration must communicate to the Tribunal such motives and show they were real.

Time limit to request management evaluation: Pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation. Confirmative decisions: Confirmative decisions do not have the effect of reopening time limits for appeal.

Appealable decisions: According to article 2.1(a) of the Statute, a staff member may not contest before the Tribunal a decision which does not affect his or her rights under the staff member¡¯s contract of employment or terms of appointment.Decisions on publication of United Nations documents: Pursuant to former staff rule 112.7 and staff rule 1.9, all rights on documents prepared by a staff member as part of his or her functions following his or her supervisors¡¯ instructions and under their supervision belong to the Organization only. Accordingly, a decision on the publication of such document...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant¡¯s case rests firmly at her own door.

Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

The Tribunal concluded that there was cogent evidence that extraneous factors were taken into account in the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had sufficiently discharged his burden of proof. He showed that the actions of the Respondent¡¯s agents were unfair, improperly motivated, and wholly arbitrary.

Administrative decision: A decision imposing to a staff member an obligation to report to work may not be said to be purely preparatory in nature, as it has effects on his or her terms of appointment. As such, it is a decision open to appeal before the Tribunal. Interim measures: The Tribunal may only grant suspension of action on a decision as an interim measure under articles 10.2 of the Statute and 14 of the Rules of procedure during the proceedings of a case, that is, when there is an application against the same decision pending before it. Management evaluation/receivability of suspension...

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Moreover, it had not caused her any prejudice. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

Receivability/lack of legitimate interest to appeal: By the time the Applicant filed her application, the contested decision had already been overturned. Hence, she had no legitimate interest in contesting it before the Tribunal. The application is thus irreceivable.

Categories of candidates: The staff selection system established in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 was based on a rigid hierarchy of three categories of candidates in terms of priority consideration: 15, 30 and 60-day mark candidates. If a candidate belonged to a priority category he or she was excluded from the less priority ones. Internal, non-internal and external candidates: ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 distinguished between: (1) internal candidates, strictly defined in section 1; (2) non-internal candidates, comprising staff members who did not fall within this definition; and (3) external candidates, those...

Management evaluation: Pursuant to well-settled case law of the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. Improper motives: The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence that the contested decision was tainted by improper motives.

The Tribunal held that since summary dismissal/termination may have been the possible outcome at the end of the disciplinary process, the Respondent had to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the daily casual worker (Mary) was transferred to MovCon as a result of the alleged sexual relationship between her and the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were not established and that the facts which were established did not legally amount to misconduct under the Regulations and Rules of the United Nations. Consequently, the...

Outcome: The Tribunal awarded the Applicant USD25,000 for the breach of his rights and the resultant harm. The Applicant also contested the decision to remove some of his functions from him and modify his reporting arrangements, to initiate and carry out a fact-finding management review in relation to his performance, and to place him on special leave with full pay (¡°SLWFP¡±). The UNDT made the following findings. The Respondent failed to meet its obligations for assessing and managing the performance of the Applicant. The Respondent did not fully and fairly raise the performance issues at the...

A decisive or material fact as per art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. The said fact must be of such significant weight that its consideration in the case should lead to a revision of the judgment. The Dispute Tribunal has power to revise the judgments of the former UN Administrative Tribunal, being its successor and subject to compliance with the provisions of art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The issue of power to suspend a staff member during the disciplinary process is a matter of law and not of fact.

Legal representation: An applicant may be represented by counsel before the Tribunal provided the requirements of art. 8.2(c) and art. 12 of the Rules of Procedure are met; in particular, the applicant must formally authorize counsel to represent him/her and adequate information must be provided to the Tribunal on the good standing of counsel. Preparatory decisions: According to well-settled case law of the Dispute Tribunal, preparatory decisions are not subject to appeal. They may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision.

Non-renewal The Chief Administrative Officer¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was arbitrarily taken. Downsizing In cases of downsizing, there is generally some established criteria put in place to ensure accountability and transparency of the process. In the present case, there was no evidence of such criteria and the Tribunal found that the Applicant was deliberately reassigned to another unit in order to make it possible for the downsizing axe to fall on him. Expectancy of renewal Applicant had a legitimate expectancy of renewal of contract considering that the Personnel...

STL staff members are not United Nations staff members and thus do not have access to the Tribunal.

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The UNDT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.

UNAT noted that UNDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that UNDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, UNAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...