Any changes to the Applicant’s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office’s work. The Applicant’s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.
In the preliminary assessment of the complaint, the responsible official correctly reviewed not only the Applicant’s allegations but also the evidence he provided. The responsible official reasonably (a) found no grounds to believe that the subject of the complaint had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, and (b) concluded that the evidence did not reveal a pattern of harassment. No evidence showed that the authority to review the complaint had been unlawfully delegated or any other procedural irregularity. While the responsible official could have better spelled out the managerial measures...
OIOS acted in accordance with the procedures set down in ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, taking into account all relevant considerations in reaching its decision under section 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 to take no action on the complaint. Accordingly, there was no foundation for the substantive claim made by the Applicant, nor any foundation for any award of compensation. An investigation would not resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the SRSG, since there clearly was and remains inter-personal differences between them. Instead, it would likely deepen the divide between them. An...
The Applicant did not appeal a final administrative decision carrying direct legal effects. The application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae. The contested decisions had no nexus with the Applicant's former employment with the Organization, the application was therefore not receivable ratione personae.
In making the final decision on the Applicants’ complaint, the then Director General, UNOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...
The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has complied with every aspect of the regulatory framework. Specifically, regarding the complaint that the Applicant was not provided with details of the allegations that led to the investigation, there is no requirement for such disclosure when informing a staff member that they will be placed on leave with pay at the initial stage of an investigation. This differs from the circumstances where the decision being made is placement on leave without pay. There is no indication that the Respondent acted other than in full compliance with the regulatory...
UNDT found the application materially receivable as it concerned a decision that was appropriately the subject of judicial review. UNDT found that the decision to reassign the Applicant rather than place her on administrative leave, was taken balancing her best interest with those of the Organization. These reasons were supported by evidence. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving any improper motive, irregularity or unlawfulness on the part of the Respondent in the decision to re-assign her duties. UNDT therefore held that the presumption of...
It is clear from ST/AI/1999/9 and the 11 February 2019 interoffice memorandum: (a) that sending a note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General when selecting a male candidate instead of a suitable female colleague is a mandatory requirement as the verb “shall” is used (b) that for “review and discussion”, the relevant note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General is to be submitted before—and not after—any selection decision is taken and (c) that in this note, the hiring entity is to explain and document why the “recommended” male candidate is “clearly superior” to any...
The interview questions were reasonable and that the panel’s report was comprehensive, well-structured and thorough, and with reference to Sanwidi, the decision not to recommend the Applicant was therefore not “absurd or perverse” It is uncontested that the Applicant passed the written test, which was administered by the technical panel, whose composition he is now challenging. Accordingly, this composition evidently did not result in any concrete negative consequence(s) for the Applicant in the challenged selection process, but as a general matter, the Tribunal cannot exclude that a situation...
The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant’s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (“CRP’). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...
