51ÁÔÆæ

Decisions of the General-Assembly - A decision of the General Assembly is binding on the Secretary-General who has a duty to implement it. The Applicant lacks the capacity to challenge the non-renewal of her appointment in so far as it is properly implemented in consequence of the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish it. Interpretation of section 3.7 (b) of ST/AI/2013/4 - Section 3.7 (b) does not envisage a situation of post abolishment. The said section contemplates a situation where the post formerly encumbered by a former or retired staff member continues to exist and the separated staff...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT found that, because the Applicant was able to secure alternative employment, albeit at a lower...

The Tribunal granted the application, and the contested decision was rescinded and SLWP request remanded for the ASG/OHRM¡¯s consideration within 30 days.

The UNDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the DM post under the framework established by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). Tribunal finds that, had the Applicant been afforded proper consideration for the DM post as a displaced permanent staff member, he would have had fifty per cent chance of being selected. The UNDT found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the selection process was tainted by bias against the Applicant. Having considered relevant factors¡ªnamely, that (i) the Applicant lost a fifty per cent chance of being selected...

The Applicant, a UNDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

The UNDT remanded the Applicant¡¯s request to the Secretary-General for consideration. The UNDT directed that, within one month of the date of this judgment, the Applicant shall submit any further documentation to the MSD New York that he wishes to be taken into consideration. The UNDT further ordered that, within 90 calendar days of the date of this Judgment, the Respondent, through a properly designated office, shall render a decision on the Applicant¡¯s request.

As the Appeals Tribunal stated in Bowen 2011-UNAT-183, the Applicant¡¯s termination indemnity should be taken into account when awarding compensation. This is consistent with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s pronouncement in Warren 2010-UNAT-059 that ¡°the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations¡±. Therefore, as both the termination indemnity and the payment in lieu of notice stemmed from the improper termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, these sums shall be deducted from...

The sanction was based on a finding that the Applicant had engaged in misconduct when he left a hand-held radio and an MP5 9 mm submachine gun with two magazines and approximately 60 rounds of ammunition UNATtended in a UN vehicle that he had been operating, resulting in these items being stolen when an unknown person or persons broke into that vehicle while the Applicant waited several minutes in a restaurant for a take-out meal. The UNDT Tribunal found that the imposed sanction was not manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, obviously absurd or flagrantly arbitrary. It was within the...

The UNDT found that the element of the application concerning conversion to permanent appointment was not receivable as the Applicant had not requested management evaluation of this decision. In respect to the receivable elements of the application, the UNDT found that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal. However, the Tribunal found that the decision not to renew his appointment was unlawful, as it was based on a flawed performance management process. In particular, in the Applicant¡¯s first performance cycle, there were significant delays in the implementation of the various...

The Applicant, as a former Service Contractor, does not have standing to submit an application to the Tribunal pursuant to article 2.1 and 3.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.