51ÁÔÆæ

If the scope of understanding of what the mandatory enrollment-related fees are under sec. 3.1(a) were to be limited in accordance with the Respondent¡¯s submissions, this should therefore have been reflected in the relevant legal framework. This is, however, not the case. Under the plain meaning rule, if the Respondent, namely the Secretary-General, wants the situation to be regulated as contended by his Counsel, this should therefore also clearly and unambiguously follow from the relevant legal framework, in particular ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, which the Secretary-General has promulgated himself...

It follows from the case record that the reasons for rejecting the Applicant¡¯s return-to-work plan on 13 May 2019 were only presented to the Applicant in the Respondent¡¯s reply submitted by Counsel for the Respondent. This was evidently a procedural error. The scope of this irregularity was exacerbated by the statutory requirement of sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3, which demands ¡°the manager ¡­ to establish that the requested accommodations represent a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace¡± (italics added). The Applicant¡¯s manager was not Counsel for the Respondent before the Dispute...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that his separation was unfair and that the Administration did not violate any term of the Applicant¡¯s contract of employment. The Applicant challenged the fact that he was separated on ground of retrenchment before the General Assembly had approved the Budget to abolish his post. The record showed that this issue was already adjudicated upon in favour of the Applicant under Order No. 086 (NBI/2019). In accordance with the Tribunal¡¯s earlier final finding on the matter, it...

As a result of the Applicant's request for management evaluation, the contested decision was rescinded. Therefore, said decision no longer produces legal effects and the application is moot.

The Tribunal held a case management discussion on 19 August 2021 during which the parties agreed that this application had been superseded by the decision of 12 November 2019 from the ABCC denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for benefits under Appendix D. At the time of filing the application, on 23 October 2019, the Applicant had not yet received this decision. In view of this development, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae as indeed the application did not disclose a reviewable administrative decision. The Applicant did not establish that she was contesting...

The present matter can be determined on a priority basis without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply as provided for in art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. There is no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. Accordingly, the Applicant does not have standing and the application is not receivable ratione personae. Having filed the application pending the response of the management evaluation and prior to the expiry of the relevant response period, the Tribunal is not competent to hear the matter at issue. The...

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1. They were timely, having been filed within the applicable deadline, following a properly requested management evaluation. 2. An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips for the month of February 2018. 3. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s claim that the administrative discretion is a criterion for determining receivability of an application...

The facts of the case amounted to two decisions being challenged: the decision of the RSCE to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for education grant for his son for the 2019-2020 academic year, in total or prorated, and the Head of Mission¡¯s refusal to grant the Applicant an exception under staff rule 12.3(b). The Applicant only requested management evaluation of the RSCE decision. To the extent that the Applicant contested the decision of the Head of Mission, the application was not receivable since the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of that decision. The Applicant did not...

UNDT noted that the Applicant did not assert any right acquired in terms of his previous contract of employment with the Organization. UNDT held that there was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. UNDT held that the Applicant did not have standing and that the application was not receivable ratione personae. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that UNDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...