51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal examined the alleged procedural errors in the appointment of the investigation panel and the conduct of its investigation, before turning to examine the alleged errors in the making of the contested decision itself.; Appointment of the panel; The Tribunal found that the panel, appointed by a responsible official (the then Executive Director OAJ) who had a conflict of interest, was not constituted in accordance with sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It was illegal and void ab initio. A decision maker cannot, knowing the basis of a request for recusal, take important steps in a process...

The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant¡¯s application for the three P-3 posts was not fully and fairly considered, since the Hiring Manager did not personally evaluate her candidacy based on the information included in the PHP and e-PAS reports, while formally endorsing the decision of the CSS/OSU not to shortlist the Applicant. The Applicant¡¯s e-PAS reports contained essential information regarding the Applicant¡¯s fulfilment of the highly desirable requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal concludes that it has no competence to order the Secretary-General to assess the way the...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment

The Tribunal found that there were no good reasons to depart from the principle of renewal pending completion of a rebuttal process. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s performance was not fairly evaluated, notably during the third and fourth evaluation cycles. Thus, these performance appraisals could not be relied upon to justify a decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. As a consequence, the Tribunal found that the third reason for not renewing the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely that she...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant, an individual contractor, did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants under art. 3.1 of its Statute. Noting that individual contractors are not staff members, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing and, consequently, that the application was not receivable ratione personae.

The parties disagreed as to the date the contested decision was notified to the Applicant and the Tribunal had to determine which of the communications triggered the running of the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation.; It was uncontested by the Applicant that he was informed, unequivocally, by his manager on 28 October 2015, that his contract was going to be terminated effective 31 January 2016 and that he was being placed on special leave with full pay as of 1 November 2015. He was also unequivocally informed on that date that he would no longer have access to his emails and...

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...

Administrative leave; The Tribunal noted that the decision letter of 27 July 2017 conveyed that the decision was based on the reputational risk to the Organization in light of the allegations against the Applicant, relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an underage girl, and on the basis of the available evidence and findings of the investigation report.; The Tribunal was satisfied that the sensitive nature of the allegations, which were sustained by some evidence, justified the Administration¡¯s decision, in its exercise of discretion, to put the Applicant on administrative leave, in...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner¡¯s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant¡¯s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March...

The parties were at odds as to the procedure for establishing a medical board under art. 17 of Appendix D. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the ABCC failed to adhere to art. 17(b) of former Appendix D because it failed to establish a medical board to consider and report on the medical aspects of his claim. The Respondent submitted that the onus was on the Applicant to request the establishment of a medical board and to nominate a medical practitioner to represent him on the medical board. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s submission that the Applicant was obliged to request a medical board...

The Administration decided to re-examine an earlier decision not to review the two job descriptions. The Applicant was notified that after multiple reviews it was decided that the two job descriptions would not be revised. The Applicant received notification of this final and unambiguous decision at a moment, which puts her request for management evaluation well within the deadline. The application is deemed receivable.