51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT reiterated that, as it had held in Adorna UNDT/2009/012, the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the propriety of the letter of reprimand were not receivable and this case was limited to the following contested decisions: (i) the refusal to allow the Applicant access to the investigation report; (ii) the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s legal expenses; and (iii) the refusal to issue internal and public announcements acknowledging his exoneration. UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request for the investigation report was reasonable and that the obligations of good faith and fair dealing required...

UNDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. UNDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant¡¯s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, UNDT found that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated when the...

The only issue for consideration by the Tribunal is the adequacy of compensation granted by the Secretary-General to the applicant. The applicant alleged that if the selection process had been lawful, he would have been selected to the post and that the compensation granted did not take into account the decrease in his pension benefits. In order to obtain compensation, it is not enough for an applicant to determine that a procedural irregularity was committed; he should also establish that this irregularity caused him a direct prejudice. Therefore, the applicant should demonstrate that he had...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In...

The Tribunal rescinds the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s employment and Orders: (i) the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant to a position whose duties she is able to carry out given the impairment she suffers; (ii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant¡¯s lost earnings from the date of termination of her fixed-term appointment to the date of her reinstatement with interest at 8% per month for the said period; (iii) Orders that the Applicant be paid her entitlement to for the period from 28 March 2007 to 31 July 2007 during which period she was entitled to special sick leave...

Settlement offer v. management evaluation: The respondent¡¯s settlement offer was clearly and unequivocally marked ¡°PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY¡± (emphasis in the original). The indication ¡°for settlement purposes only¡± in block capitals at the top of the letter left no room for interpretation as to the purpose of the letter, which was not to respond to the applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation. Inconsistency between article 8.1 (d) (i) of the UNDT Statute and staff rule 11.4 (a). In accordance with UNDT Statute art. 8.1, in order to be receivable, an...

The Applicant¡¯s fixed term-appointment came to an end as a result of her service-incurred injury. The Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was in fact terminated and it is disingenuous for the Respondent to argue that ¡°it was allowed to run until the end of the term and was not renewed on medical grounds.¡± The administrative decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment due to the Applicant¡¯s inability to resume her professional activities with ICTR in Arusha was informed by improper motive. The applicable procedural rules that should have been followed by the Respondent in this...

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate ¡°rebuttal¡± procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...

Articles 2(1) and 2(1) (a) of the Statute of the UNDT define a contract of employment to include ¡°all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of the alleged non-compliance. There is nothing before the Tribunal to evidence that the Applicant signed any LOA in relation to the offer made by the organization to employ him on the terms defined in the reassignment memorandum dated 10 June 2008. The reassignment memorandum contained terms that were not certain, that were qualified and cannot therefore besaid to have been a final and binding...

The application is prima facie not receivable before the UN Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former UN Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the UN Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.