51ÁÔÆæ

Standard of review: In the context of a promotion exercise conducted under a specific policy, the Tribunal¡¯s review is essentially focused on the implementation of the policy. It is not the Tribunal¡¯s role to examine whether a policy adopted by the Organization is well-founded or appropriate. However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair consideration for promotion. The Tribunal cannot amend a policy adopted by the Organization but may ¡°point out what...

Standard of proof in disciplinary cases - In disciplinary proceedings it is well settled now that the evidence must be clear and convincing and that would include identification evidence. Evidence of misconduct must be clear and convincing. Findings of fact by the trial judge - As a trier of facts, a first instance judge has the means and power to assess the veracity and accuracy of a witness. The findings of fact of a trial judge should rarely be reversed on appeal unless the findings are so perverse that no reasonable person would have come to the conclusions reached on the facts by the...

The Tribunal found that the application, even if it was diligently filed by the Applicant, was premature as the Applicant¡¯s reconsideration request was still pending before the Secretary-General.

UNDT¡¯s review of OLA¡¯s letter. The Tribunal found that OLA¡¯s letter of 11 August 2015 is not an administrative decision in the form of a settlement provided by the Administration based on OLA¡¯s preliminary review of the Applicant¡¯s claim for gross negligence pursuant to art. 3 of ST/SGB/230 or in a form of an offer to submit the claim to arbitration pursuant to art. 6 from ST/SGB/230. Even if OLA¡¯s letter of 11 August 2015 were to be considered, as submitted by the Applicant, as a response to his ¡°notice of arbitration¡±, the Tribunal would have no competence to review it. As clearly results...

The UNDT found that the first case (UNDT/NY/2015/038) was not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure 51ÁÔÆæ the relevant time limit for the filing of her request for management evaluation. The UNDT found that the second case (UNDT/NY/2015/038) was also not receivable as the Applicant¡¯s argument that her earlier evaluation request (to which she received no reply) should be considered as the applicable management evaluation request would have resulted in her application being time-barred by several months.

N/A

The Tribunal rescinded the contested decisions and awarded USD50,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

he Tribunal rescinded the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment and ordered the Respondent to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment retroactively from 7 June 2014. As the contested decision concerned a question of appointment, the Respondent was given the alternative option of paying the Applicant USD5,000 in compensation. The Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages was rejected.

N/A

Management evaluation: the requirement of filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an application before the Tribunal has been invariably upheld by the Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to either waive the deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation with the MEU or make any exception to it; therefore, the Tribunal is incompetent to review decisions which have not been subjected to management evaluation. Technical bodies: as per staff rule 11.2(b), technical bodies are determined by the Secretary-General. Absent such determination...