51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal concluded that there was cogent evidence that extraneous factors were taken into account in the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had sufficiently discharged his burden of proof. He showed that the actions of the Respondent¡¯s agents were unfair, improperly motivated, and wholly arbitrary.

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The UNDT ordered: (i) USD50,000 for the breach of the Applicant¡¯s right to be properly considered for an appointment beyond 31 December 2005 and resultant harm; (ii) USD20,000 for anxiety and emotional distress. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to give full, fair, and proper consideration to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Bureau of the COP. The UNDT found that had the Respondent followed proper procedure and afforded proper consideration, the Applicant stood a significantly high chance of receiving an...

The Tribunal finds that the circumstances appertaining at the time of recruitment of the Applicant created a legal expectancy of renewal. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was arrived at in breach of her rights to due process. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the non-renewal of the contract subject to the duty to mitigate.

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...

UNDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. UNDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant¡¯s filing of his application was prompt and...

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...

Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found in Villamoran UNDT/2011/126, that the mandatory 31-day break in service for staff between their fixed-term and temporary appointments, if not supported by law, is prima facie unlawful. The Respondent was ordered to provide evidence to support the decision but failed to do so. The evidence submitted neglected to show the publication date or the precise method of publication of the revised administrative instruction. The Administration has an obligation to properly announce amendments to Staff rules and regulations for decisions to be proper and made...

UNDT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. UNDT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. UNDT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper...

UNDT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the UNDT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. UNDT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.

At this stage, the Applicant¡¯s allegations are assertions that are not adequately supported by evidence. Outcome: Dismissal of the application.

UNDT held that the decision not to select the Applicant was appropriately reviewed by the JAB panel and therefore proper. UNDT held that the requirement of relevant experience was appropriate and necessary for this particular vacancy and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNDT held that the JAB panel addressed the appropriate legal principles and that, in applying those princples to the facts of the case, it asked the correct questions and considered the appropriate authorities. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to satisfy it that there was any material irregularity...

Compensation for stress and anxiety The Applicant produced medical evidence of stress and anxiety. The Tribunal finds that this aspect of the claim is made out. Also, the actions of Mr. Stephen Lieberman, Chief Administrative Officer, described in the Tribunal¡¯s Judgment on liability, were high-handed and grossly disproportionate and the attempt at misleading both the JAB and JDC panels, as well as Counsel for the Respondent and the Tribunal in the present proceedings, constitute aggravating factors which the Tribunal finds heightened the distress experienced by the Applicant. In arriving at a...

Outcome: The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General acted properly within his broad discretion in deciding to take no action in relation to the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment, and the appeal was dismissed.

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post was a valid exercise of the Organization¡¯s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

The application for suspension of action was dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant.

The Applicant¡¯s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent¡¯s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member¡¯s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent¡¯s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The UNDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...

This application for suspension of action is dismissed upon withdrawal by the Applicant.

Having examined the documents and having heard the evidence from the PCO of the selection panel, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no material irregularity in that all relevant procedures and guidelines were followed. The JAB panel¡¯s examination of the facts is not tainted by procedural error or bias. The application before this Tribunal fails and is dismissed.

The application was closed after the parties reached an amicable resolution.

The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were violated when his computer hard drive was seized in violation of sec. 8.5(a) of ST/STGB/2004/15. However, by giving him notice and inviting him to be present when the ICT data were being accessed the Administration accorded him his due process rights in accordance with sec. 8.5(b)(i) of ST/STGB/2004/15; The JAB¡¯s review of his case was unconscionably delayed and procedurally flawed. The Respondent bears responsibility for this; The JDC process was proper and fair. The consideration by the investigation panel and the Report of the JDC were soundly based...