51ÁÔÆæ

Testimony of anonymous witnesses: The Tribunal held that the testimony of witnesses whom the Applicant has not had the opportunity to confront in proceedings is not inadmissible per se. However, a decision adverse to a staff member in a disciplinary case may not be based solely on this. There must be some independent evidence that can confirm the anonymous testimony, especially where the staff member has not had a chance to confront the witnesses and therefore challenge any incriminating evidence they have given against the staff member. The Tribunal also held that the requirements of due...

The mention of the Applicant's name in several documents communicated to a number of countries in relation to an ongoing investigation had an impact on the Applicant's professional mobility. Indeed, while on official travel, the Applicant had been stopped in various airports, sometimes for several hours, and had been asked whether he had another passport in his possession. The absence of a response from OIOS over the course of its multi-year investigation was a deliberate act, if not an instance of negligence in the Administration's duty to act within a relatively reasonable time. This failure...

Due process: The Tribunal held that there were two serious procedural flaws that violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights: (i) the UNICEF Handbook unduly restricted the grounds on which the Applicant could rebut her performance appraisal in a way not envisaged by ST/AI/2002/3; and (ii) By misinforming the Applicant and effectively causing her to abandon the other legitimate grounds of rebuttal she had intended to rely on, the Director of Human Resources flawed the whole rebuttal process. Rebuttal process: The Tribunal held that the rebuttal process was also flawed because the Rebuttal Panel...

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant¡¯s rights were respected in compliance with ST/AI/371. The Applicant failed to establish any irregularities in the procedure followed to impose the disciplinary measure on him. It was clear from the investigation that there were several irregularities in the supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. These irregularities were sufficiently disturbing to strongly suggest that the said invoices were falsified. The facts on the basis of which the Applicant was sanctioned were established. The Applicant¡¯s actions constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of the...

The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that no international labour standards or the United Nation¡¯s Charter were breached in the process of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the Harmonization of Conditions of Service for Internationally-Recruited Staff in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Application is dismissed in its entirety Contract of employment - Article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute defines the contract of employment, as including: all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged...

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. UNOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. UNOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons UNDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The UNDT found that the decision of USG/DM was proper and lawful because the Applicant did not possess a University degree or the relevant experience as set out in the Vacancy Announcement (VA) of the post to which he had applied. While the VA required an Advanced University degree or a first level University degree with a relevant combination of academic qualifications as well as at least seven years¡¯ experience in administration and human resources or financial/ budget operations, the Applicant had none of these. Equivalence of qualifications to University degrees: Considering that United...

The Applicant was not qualified to address UNDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.

The UNDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from UNOPS to WHO and back to UNOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to UNOPS, and her separation from UNOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The UNDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.