51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent¡¯s failure to disclose the reasons to the UNDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The UNDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The UNDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months¡¯ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

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

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

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

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs¡¯ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

The Tribunal cannot review the Alleged Harassment complaint as management evaluation is a prerequisite to an application before the Tribunal¡ªsee Planas 2010-UNAT-049 and Syed 2010-UNAT-061. The Tribunal does not have the power to suspend or waive time limits¡ªsee Costa 2010-UNAT-036. In this case there was no request for, or grant of an extension by the Secretary General. Therefore, regardless of whether there were attempts at informal resolution (or, indeed any other circumstance or factor), the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the First Decision is out of time as it was filed more than 60 days after...

The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...

ST/IC/2006/60, the legality of which has not been contested by the Applicant, is clear as far as the rates for relocation grant are concerned. It stipulates on the one hand that for single staff members ¡°separating from service following appointments or assignments of one year or more¡±, the applicable rate is USD10,000, and on the other hand that ¡°for assignments of less than one year¡± the rate is USD1,200. It is clear that the Applicant, who was assigned to Geneva for six months only because he decided to resign, falls within the latter category. The Administration could thus rely on this...

Noting that both the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had repeatedly emphasized the need to observe time limits, the Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred, without ruling on the admissibility ratione personae of it.