51ÁÔÆæ

If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply ¡°give¡± the Applicant another position within UNEP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate...

He claims that all other retirees who had been employed were granted the maximum of 125 working days under ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2, while he was granted only 106 working days in 2013. The Chief, CTS, allegedly favored those retirees who invited him/made him gifts, while the Applicant was discriminated and retaliated, since he had reported the unethical behavior by the Chief, CTS. The Tribunal found that retirees have no ¡°right¡± to be employed for a maximum of 125 working under the terms of ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2. The Applicant failed to provide evidence that the decision was motivated by extraneous...

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant had been working with UNON as an independent contractor, the Tribunal held that he was not a staff member of UNON and as such, he has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

Neither DSS, OHRM, the CRB nor the ASG/OHRM conducted a reasoned analysis on how the date and the gravity of the disciplinary sanction impacted on the recommendation(s) and/or the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. The Administration failed to apply its own Guidelines requiring that a mandatory review of the date and gravity of the disciplinary measure applied to the Applicant be conducted and that any resulting decision include a reasoned explanation thereto.

ReceivabilityThe placement of a staff member on administrative leave is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. It is an administrative decision for the purposes of art. 8.1 (c) of the Statute and within the well settled meaning of an administrative action as laid down in Andronov. The Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to determine the validity of an administrative decision unless it has been first referred to the Management Evaluation Unit pursuant to art.11.2 of the Staff Rules. In the absence of management evaluation of the decision to place the Applicant on administrative leave...

The Tribunal found that within UNFPA, the authority to place a staff member on SLWFP rests with the UNFPA Executive Director, and that his authority was not duly delegated to another UNFPA Official. In view of that, the Tribunal concluded that the decision-maker did not have the competence to take the contested decision, ordered its rescission and awarded USD1,000 to the Applicant as moral damages for the breach of her rights due to that fundamental procedural flaw. The compensation was restricted to the fact that the Applicant had stated on several occasions that while she did contest the...

The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant¡¯s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...

Receivability - ST/SGB/2008/5 provides comprehensive procedures, both informal and formal, to a person who alleges that he or she is a victim of prohibited conduct. Although the Applicant complained that the impugned decisions amounted to an abuse of authority, he did not invoke the procedures set up to address such allegations. Accordingly there is no decision made pursuant to the ST/SGB for the Tribunal to review.

The Tribunal ruled that the transfer within the recipient organization does not fall within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction and that, hence, the application was irreceivable ratione materiae in this respect. Regarding UNICEF's alleged failure to intervene to prevent the Applicant¡¯s reassignment, while conceding that the Organization has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its employees, the Tribunal found that such duty had not been breached in this case, since the Applicant informed UNICEF of her reassignment only a few days before she ceased being a UNICEF staff member following her inter-organization...