51ÁÔÆæ

The applicant, a P-3 level staff member, applied for the P-4 post of Chief of her Unit. She was not selected. It later transpired that the applicant had initially received the highest score, but her supervisors, who participated in the selection, increased the successful candidate¡¯s score. This resulted in the successful candidate being ranked higher than the applicant. The Secretary-General agreed with the finding of the Joint Appeals Board that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated and awarded her compensation in the amount of three months¡¯ salary. The applicant appealed, seeking additional...

The panel report did not constitute a breach of the applicant¡¯s contractual rights and therefore no compensation is warranted. Such a panel is not a court and while it must be fair, it must be allowed to do its reasonable best to ascertain the facts as it thinks is right. Even though the audit was seriously flawed in significant respects, the decision as to its content is not subject to appeal to the Tribunal. Constructive dismissal occurs when the employer engages in a scheme of action which, in effect makes it so difficult for the employee to continue with his or her work, that the latter...

Outcome: On the balance of probabilities it appears that the applicant was unable to perform his duties at an adequate level and the most significant cause of this situation was not lack of training or assistance, but his own attitude. In fairness to the applicant, more should have been done to help his transition from his outside employment to the requirements of his new employment. In light of the rebuttal process being made available to the applicant, he did not suffer any actual detriment from the lack of an ePAS and had the benefit of a rebuttal process. The application is dismissed in...

Evaluation of candidates: The record appears to reflect a careful and comprehensive examination of the claims of the various applicants. There was no problematical analysis or conclusion that suggested that the process had gone awry or was anything other than proper. Failure to notify: Sec 9.5 of ST/AI/2006/3 provides that an unsuccessful interviewed applicant should be informed by the programme that they have not been selected or rostered. This was not done. The applicant suffered no loss or additional anxiety arising out of the inappropriate and discourteous way in which she became aware of...

Jurisdiction of Tribunal: Although the Administration released the moneys to the applicant, when the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is properly engaged, the mere fact that the Administration ¡°corrects¡± the decision in question does not end the matter. The applicant is still entitled to seek a determination that the decision is unlawful and an award of compensation. Legality of withholding entitlements: The test is not guilt of the staff member but merely ¡°reason to believe¡± that they may have been grossly negligent, causing loss. This is an undemanding test, amongst other things satisfied even...

The applicant was the only 15-day candidate who was interviewed. Interviews of 30-day candidates took place the day following the applicant¡¯s interview. The applicant was not successful; instead, a 30-day candidate was appointed. The applicant submitted that the Administration failed to properly assess her suitability prior to considering other candidates and thus failed to follow the selection procedures applicable to 15-day candidates under ST/AI/2006/3. The respondent argued that the candidate was given priority consideration and was found unsuitable for the post. UNDT found that the...

The applicant joined the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) of the United Nations in September 2005 on a two-year contract as a P-4 level legal officer. Between July 2006 and January 2007 the applicant was admitted to several hospitals to receive alcohol-related treatment and, in January 2007, she was medically evacuated to her home country and subsequently placed on special leave without pay. On 1 August 2007, the applicant was informed that her contract would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 2 September 2007. The applicant filed an appeal contesting the...

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...

Outcome: For distress: USD5,000. For loss of chance: (a) 10 percent of the difference between the salary the applicant actually carries and that she would have received in the D-2 position on a continuous basis, (b) 10 percent of any additional allowances and benefits she would have received at the D-2 level including adjustment of her pension contributions and consequent retirement benefits.

Outcome: The applicant is not entitled to have the note removed simply because no disciplinary proceedings were undertaken in respect of the investigation report. However, the note in its present form is inaccurate and must be removed. Its replacement, if any, must be accurate and first shown to the applicant, who must be given a copy of the investigation report to enable him to place such comment on the file as he wishes, providing it is reasonably connected to the investigation.