51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

International standards on retrenchment and retention: There are international norms and standards regarding the termination of employment of work due to economic, technological or structural change, and the rights of retrenched workers and of staff representatives. The International Labour Organization Convention on Termination of Employment (Convention No. C158) (1982), which contains provisions applicable to all branches of economic activity and to all employed persons (art. 2), states at art. 4 that the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9(6)(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s termination was unlawful because he did not receive proper...

The Tribunal found no evidence of an express promise in writing sufficient to support a legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment. The Tribunal also found that the reason given for the decision was sufficiently supported by the weight of the credible evidence. The Applicant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision was motivated by bias, prejudice or discrimination.

The present current Dispute Tribunal not competent. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The rejection of creating a ¡°separate case¡± for the Applicant¡¯s motion for interim relief in Case No. UNDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal found the application not receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation.

he Tribunal rescinded the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment and ordered the Respondent to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment retroactively from 7 June 2014. As the contested decision concerned a question of appointment, the Respondent was given the alternative option of paying the Applicant USD5,000 in compensation. The Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages was rejected.