51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that the decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for advance home leave was unlawful and ordered the Respondent to correct the Applicant¡¯s personnel file to reflect the home leave points she accrued while working on temporary appointments, and to pay her material damages in the amount of USD1,543.04, in compensation of the price she paid for her flight ticket. Transition from a temporary to a fixed-term appointment: Sec. 1.2 of ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1 indicates how the Organization shall proceed when granting a fixed-term appointment after a temporary appointment. However, it does...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

While the eventual payment of arrears put an end to the ongoing breach by the Administration, it did not erase the failure to pay the salary when due, and in due amounts, nor the damage that would have been occasioned by the lack of timely payment during the period of two years. The Tribunal found that the duration of the breach and its continuing character was, by UNDT experience, extreme. This was combined with the obscurity of its cause, i.e., ¡°technical problem with funding¡± which remained unexplained. Reasonably, a problem with funding for the position should have prevented the deployment...

The Tribunal held that the managers concerned acted in accordance with the obligations placed on them by sections 9 and 10 of ST/AI/400. Given the fact that the Applicant absented himself from work in Sector East without proper authorization and failed to heed the advice and requests sent to him, the Organization did not act unlawfully in taking steps to place him on SLWOP. Moreover, it was lawful for the Organization to take steps to recover payments made in advance in respect of education grant and travel in circumstances where such advances were not utilised for the purpose for which they...

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Applicant¡¯s argument that staff rule 9.2(b) should apply to her case because her resignation was not genuine and the Administration had set her up for resignation. Rather, it was apparent to the Tribunal that the Applicant¡¯s resignation was situational and a consequence of a combination of earlier decisions taken by the Applicant and the external factors. The Applicant overestimated the power of her newly acquired diploma on the job market which proved more difficult than she had expected. The Applicant made no inquiries concerning termination indemnity...

The Tribunal held that the application for revision was manifestly inadimissable because the Applicant did not bring to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of any new decisive fact which was unknown to the Tribunal or to himself at the time Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059 was rendered. The issue of lack of investigation alleged by the Applicant was properly considered in Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059.

The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant¡¯s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent¡¯s obligation to notify...