51ÁÔÆæ

On 19 October 2011, the Tribunal issued Order No. 129 (NBI/2011) suspending the implementation of the contested decision until 10 November 2011 allowing the Tribunal to allow the filing of the Respondent¡¯s Reply, the hearing held on 3 November 2011 and the determination of the matter. The Applicant was communicated the response from MEU on 27 October 2011 as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s response. The Applicant filed his case on the merits, registered in the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s records as UNDT/NBI/2011/070 and simultaneously filed under article 14 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant¡¯s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children¡¯s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable ratione termporis, considering that, for the purpose of former staff rule 111.2(a), the Applicant was duly notified of his non-selection by the email of 5 June 2009, and that subsequent communications were merely confirmative. Notification of non-selection decision: Former staff rule 111.2(a) did not require that a decision must be communicated in any specific manner, except that it must be in writing. Confirmative decisions: A decision which merely confirms a previous one may not be appealed and it does not reopen the time limit for formal...

UNDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. UNDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant¡¯s filing of his application was prompt and...

Outcome: The Applicant¡¯s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant¡¯s file and pay the Applicant six months¡¯ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

The Tribunal finds no flaws in the procedure leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. It further finds, based on its assessment of the intern¡¯s credibility and on the evidence available, that the facts have been established. It also concludes that they qualify as misconduct, even though the Respondent erroneously relied on ST/SGB/2008/5; the latter was indeed issued on 11 February 2008 and was therefore not applicable at the time of the misconduct. Finally, the Tribunal, recalling the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion in disciplinary matters and considering the circumstances of the case, finds...

UNDT considered that, in the circumstances of the Applicant having informed UNDTthat he will not file an application because UNDT lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the proceedings have been abandoned. UNDT cloased the case for want of prosecution.