The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.
The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant, by his own admission, failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions.
The Applicant was under the obligation to act with a minimum level of probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness as required by the established facts (staff regulation 1.2(b)). Also, if it is found that an actual or possible conflict of interest arose out of these facts, the Applicant was obliged to disclose this conflict to his head of office in order to allow UNVMC to mitigate its impact and resolve it in accordance with its own best interests (staff regulation 1.2(m)). Finally, if the Applicant’s involvement in a matter could result in an actual or potential conflict of...
Considering the circumstances, the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind the contested decision (in comparison, see the Appeals Tribunal in Lucchini 2021-UNAT-1121 and Rolli 2023-UNAT-1346).
It is standard practice and courtesy in the Organization that, albeit fixed-term appointments, per definition, do not carry any expectancy of renewal under staff rule 4.13(c), a staff member whose fixed-term appointment is not to be renewed is to receive a pre-notification concerning the non-extension, at least 30 days before its expiry. The Respondent has not argued or submitted any documentation...
The Applicant’s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.
The main issue for the Tribunal’s consideration in this case related to whether the abolishment of the Applicant’s post leading to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was lawful.
The Tribunal defined the issues to be examined in the present case as follows:
Whether the restructuring was genuine;
The evidence on record showed that the restructuring was done within the framework of the UN Secretariat-wide transition of Enterprise Information and Communication Technology (“ICT”) services to the cloud. ESCAP made strategic changes to implement this new approach, leading to the...
This case revealed overt sexual harassment where both words and physical touching were used and attempted to extract sexual favour, but even though no such favour was extracted, the harassment caused harm to the victim who was put in fear of loss of her position in the Organization and caused unnecessary tension in the staff relations between the persons involved.
In this case both words and acts were used together during a short period of persistence. When this happens in a work setting it can cause serious emotional stress and hurt. Based on the evidence this is what occurred in this case.
...The Applicant’s Counsel’s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor’s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant’s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor’s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.
Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...
The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel’s assessment of the Applicant’s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.
The Tribunal concluded that the promulgation of ST/AI/2018/Rev.1/Amend.1, which restrictively redefined enrolment-related fees, did not conform to General Assembly resolution 70/244. As such, its promulgation was an abuse of the Administration’s discretion and its application in reviewing the Applicant’s education grant for her son was unlawful.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was correct in that the fees that she claimed were admissible as tuition, in addition to being enrolment-related. Thus, the decision to deny reimbursement for those fees was unlawful.
The Tribunal...
