51ÁÔÆæ

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of UNDP, in accordance with the practice of UNDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Receivability: The Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...

The impugned decision was suspended until when the matter would be heard and determined on the merits.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case as to warrant a suspension of action.

Method of interpretation: The interpretation of a statutory document proceeds first by establishing the plain meaning of the words in the context of the document as a whole. Only if the wording is ambiguous should the Tribunal have recourse to other documents or external sources to aid in the interpretation.Respondent¡¯s discretion in providing benefits: As a matter of principle, the Administration has no discretion in the granting of allowances but is bound to strictly apply the applicable rules.Outcome: Application rejected on the merits

The Tribunal found that the initial imposition of the reprimand was justified based on the Applicant¡¯s own admitted supervisory failings. However, the Tribunal found that the withdrawal and subsequent reinstatement of reprimand were improper, as was the decision to transfer the Applicant from his post. The Tribunal directed the parties to confer on the issue of compensation.

Management evaluation: Claims against decisions that have not been the subject of a request for management evaluation are not receivable before the Tribunal. An applicant may not seek any rulings or relief in relation to these decisions. The events surrounding them may be part of the factual matrix of the application but they are peripheral at best. Project document: There is no mandatory requirement in the rules or any Administrative Instructions for a project document to be finalised prior to the responsible staff member taking up the project post. Authority for lateral transfers under ST/AI...

There was no evidence that established that the work place had become intimidating, hostile or offensive for the Complainant. The charge of sexual harassment cannot be sustained in the circumstances to the extent that the Complainant was a willing participant in sex talks in emails, via telephone, via text messages and in person. While it is recognised that a rebuttable presumption of law or fact may exist where a certain set of facts are present, there is definitely no room for making a legal finding based on presumptions about what would likely be the case in a given situation. It is a trite...

The application was dismissed in its entirety upon the resolution of the dispute by an agreement reached through mediation.

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member¡¯s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...