51ÁÔÆæ

Pursuant to staff rule 9.6(c), the Secretary-General may terminate the appointment of a staff member who, like the Applicant, holds a continuing appointment in accordance with the terms of the appointment on the grounds of ¡°unsatisfactory service¡±. The Secretary-General has delegated this authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management (USG/DM) according to annex IV on delegation of human resources authorities to ST/SGB/2019/2 regarding delegation of authority in the administration of the Staff Regulations and Rules (see p. 21). No exception to this delegation of authority is made...

The Applicant¡¯s conduct was in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and rule 1.2(f) and constitutes misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did make efforts to persuade her supervisee to forego attempting mediation to resolve their interpersonal disputes and threatened that mediation could adversely affect her supervisee¡¯s career. In particular, the Applicant implied that should her supervisee pursue mediation, her supervisee would develop a bad reputation and that mediation lacked confidentiality. The Applicant further indicated that there may be a negative impact on the chances of...

Having reviewed the motion, the Tribunal found that it raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction which it addressed sua sponte and found the application not receivable ratione materiae. The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the internal justice system.

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2) Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

The facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established because the Applicant rendered himself publicly drunk over several hours, embroiled in a bar fight, was twice detained by the local police, went out to a bar after curfew drove a UN vehicle while he was legally drunk based on MINUSCA¡¯s zero tolerance policy refused to stop and exit the UN vehicle when signaled by MINUSCA Security Officers, including his superior drove in a dangerous manner. The established facts legally amounted to misconduct because the Applicant¡¯s actions, which included public drunkness, becoming...

The Applicant timely requested management evaluation of the contested decision and has met the procedural requirements to have this Tribunal adjudicate her case. The application is therefore receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal considered that from provisions in ST/AI/2010/5 and ST/AI/2010/4, derives a general principle to complete performance evaluations before separation applicable also to staff members holding a fixed-term appointment. The Tribunal found that the Organization had to make a balancing exercise of the Applicant¡¯s different performance results and could not simply act as...

The Tribunal rejects the application as not receivable. The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 13 November 2017 was filed more than 60 days after the notification of the decision on 31 March 2017.

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

The irregularities detected in the selection process were of such gravity¡ªnot keeping any written record of the contested administrative decision, an undefined decisionmaker, and flawed reasons and justifications¡ªthat they cannot be regarded as minor procedural or substantive errors that did not impact the outcome of the non-selection decision. Accordingly, the Respondent was not been able to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidature for the post was fully and fairly considered. Four other candidates had been shortlisted for the written test for the relevant post. Had the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in this case was clearly not based on direct organisational authority and it concerned an area protected from employer interference, the internal affairs of a Staff Union. It did not produce a sufficiently direct legal consequence to the legal order of the Applicant as a staff member.