51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

A Graduate Certificate is not equivalent to a Bachelor¡¯s or Master¡¯s degree. The correspondence from the Charles Darwin University confirms that ¡°a graduate certificate does not replace, or is equivalent to a bachelor degree, it simply has similar entry requirements in terms of previous education or experience¡±. The Applicant therefore did not have a Master¡¯s degree or equivalent, or a first-level University degree. Removing the Applicant from the roster of preapproved candidates. When the Administration intends to deprive a staff member of a certain status or right that may otherwise have...

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines were not applicable to the recruitment of UNLB GS local staff, because UNLB is not an ¡°established mission¡± and, therefore, does not fall within their remit; additionally, the Guidelines were never duly issued at ULNB. In fact, given that UNLB is not a peacekeeping operation or a special political mission, GS staff recruitments are covered by ST/AI/2010/3 and do not fall, as argued by the Respondent, in a lacuna of law,. The Tribunal further found that the time-in-grade requirements were abolished long ago and are contrary to norms of superior legal...

The Tribunal found that the hiring manager acted on the basis of a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based only on the result of his competencybased interview. Further, the hiring manager ignored relevant material when he did not take into account the Applicant¡¯s performance assessment reports, which indicated that he was ¡°outstanding¡± at teamwork.

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant¡¯s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system.

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant¡¯s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to ¡°violations of procedural fairness¡±. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...

Receivability - The arguments that this Application is not receivable were premised on the provisions of section 5 of ST/AI/1998/9 which is the legislation governing the policies and procedures for the classification and reclassification of posts. In the instant case, there was no attempt or effort made to reclassify the Applicant¡¯s post. The Respondent¡¯s preliminary objection that this Application is not receivable is therefore irrelevant and accordingly dismissed. Admissibility of evidence ¨C In considering the Respondent¡¯s prayer with regard to the admissibility of Annex 13, the Tribunal...

The Tribunal found that the Administration, which acknowledged its mistake, was entitled and bound to recover the money that had been paid to the Applicant in excess of his entitlements as a result, albeit limited to the period of two years provided for in sec. 3.1 of ST/AI/2009/1. The application was dismissed.