The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant’s post was a valid exercise of the Organization’s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.
The Applicant’s post was one of 45 posts earmarked in November 2007 for abolition by December 2008. It is not contested that the 45 posts for abolition which included the Applicant’s post were extended on GTA funding through June 2011. In the present Application on the merits, the Applicant needs to prove, at least on the balance of probabilities, that the Retention Panel was unfair in its evaluation of him and was discriminatory. Not only did he fail in his earlier suspension of action application to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged...
The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (“CMP”), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants’ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.
Obligation to consult the staff member affected by a decision to discontinue his/her post: In view of the importance, for the staff member concerned, of the decision to discontinue his/her post, the Tribunal strictly interprets the procedural obligation to consult the affected staff member.
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.
In the absence of a decision to abolish the post, there can be no suspension of such decision. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has failed to articulate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event of his success in the substantive case. The application for suspension of action would therefore fail on this ground alone. There was not a single averment regarding the prima facie unlawfulness of the alleged decision to abolish the post other than generalisations made regarding an attempted...
The post of Director of Human Rights in UNMISS was not a reclassification of the D-1 post held by the Applicant at UNMIS but a new post created to meet the need of UNMISS. It was classified as D-2 and the post held by the Applicant ceased to exist upon its abolition.; Given the importence of the Human Rights function in the new State, a D-2 post was justified. This was done in an objective manner having regard to the Secretary Council Resolution that governed the transition.; The evidence established that the consideration of the post of the Chief of Human Rights was done in conjunction with...
Receivability Judgment Appealed: As the Applicant remains a staff member early resolution of this case is essential; the facts concerning the disciplinary case and the non-disciplinary issues of demotion are inextricably linked and all of the claims can be expeditiously heard together; the appeal against receivability will take several months to be resolved and will delay the determination of the disciplinary matter. Finally, the issue of receivability may be raised in an appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Written notice: Apart from the events which intervened, he suffered no...
The Tribunal found that the acts described under (1), (4) and (5) did not meet the definition of a challengeable administrative decision, whereas the Applicant’s contention with regard to (2) was moot since her appointment had been extended by the Organization and she was not separated after 31 December 2013. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant’s contention made under (3), as it considered that she did not fall under the categories of staff members for which the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Management has the authority of exceptional placement outside the normal selection...
The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...
