The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to provide any explanation to the Tribunal as to the reasons for filing the present application 25 calendar days after the email of 28 October 2011 and nine working days before the examination. The UNDT found that the urgency in the present matter was created by the Applicant, who did not act timeously in filing the present application with sufficient urgency.
The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo UNDT/2011/168, by which the UNDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the UNDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the UNAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.
The UNDT identified several deviations in the performance evaluation procedures, but found that some of them resulted from the Applicant’s actions. The UNDT found that no harm warranting compensation was caused to the Applicant, including to her career, by the identified deviations in the performance evaluation process as the Applicant separated from service for medical reasons. The UNDT further found that the decision to reassign the Applicant within the same department was lawful. The application was rejected.
The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...
The Applicant also contested the adequacy of compensation paid to her for having been placed in a hostile work environment. The UNDT found that the Administration was obliged, at the expiration of the three years, to make a decision to either separate the Applicant or to grant her a permanent appointment. The Administration’s reliance on former staff rule 112.2(b) (on exceptions to staff rules) to further extend her probationary contract was improper as the procedural requirements of that staff rule were not met as the Applicant did not agree to the extension. The UNDT found that the...
The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...
The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...
Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...
The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children’s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...
Outcome: The Applicant’s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant’s file and pay the Applicant six months’ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.
