Any decision issued by the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims( ABCC) will be a new administrative decision which will supersede the one contested in the present case and which will be subject to this Tribunal’s authority upon the filing of an application by either of the concerned parties.
Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope...
The Applicant’s separations from service were the result of the expiration of his fixed-term appointments in the natural course of business. There were no legal provisions or administrative decision requiring that the Applicant take any breaks in service between his FTAs. The time period between his separation from service on one FTA and his re-employment on another FTA, which was not followed by any type of reinstatement, results in the Applicant’s continuity of service being broken. Therefore, one of the cumulative conditions of ST/SGB/2009/10, to have five years of continuous service before...
The Tribunal finds that, pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the Applicant’s claim is receivable. Meaning of an “agreement reached through mediation” - A plain reading of the full text of art. 8.2 requires that a mediated agreement must be reduced in to writing and signed by the parties as otherwise it would be inconceivable how the implementation of such an agreement would be enforced as provided for in the latter part of art. 8.2 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal.
The administrative decision that was being challenged was made on the recommendation of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (“ABCC”). The Tribunal found that the ABCC was correct in rejecting the Applicant’s claim for compensation for injuries suffered from the car accident.
The UNDT found, in its earlier Judgment McCloskey UNDT/2012/199 that only the decision pertaining to the Statement of Tax Settlement for the year 2010 was receivable. Following the Tribunal’s Judgments in McCloskey UNDT/2012/199 and Johnson UNDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-UNAT-240, the Respondent no longer contests the illegality of the decision to use the Applicant’s wife’s foreign income tax credit. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor...
The Tribunal has to strike a balance between the subjective and introspective feelings and perception of the aggrieved staff member with the application of reasonableness, rationality and objectivity in arriving at a fair and proper assessment of damage particularly involving the indefinable characteristics of what has been described in broad general terms as “moral damage”.The Applicant distress and anxiety as a result of feeling extremely upset and not valued by the Organization cannot justifiably be placed at the top end of the scale of severity but rather at the lower end. This is even...
The Applicant specifically submits that the staff rules state that “[c]ontinuity of service shall not be considered broken by periods of special leave” and the Respondent may not therefore deny his eligibility on the ground that his six months of special leave without pay resulted in him not having been employed for a continuous period of five years The UNDT rescinds the contested decision and finds that the Applicant is eligible for consideration for permanent appointment.
The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.
The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.
