51ÁÔÆæ

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the application filed on 2 March 2022 via email was essentially the same as that filed on 16 April 2022 via the eFiling portal. Consequently, in line with Practice Direction No. 4, para. 11, the Tribunal found that the present application was receivable.

Merits

In the present case, this Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established according to the applicable standard.

The Tribunal examined the evidence on...

The issue at stake in the case at hand is whether the Applicant has a legitimate interest in maintaining current legal proceedings.The evidence on record shows that the Respondent rescinded the contested decision on 23 March 2023. The Applicant acknowledged this in her rejoinder but considers that her grievances are not resolved because she ¡°also requested consideration for new assignments and a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter¡±.However, the 23 March 2023 letter, which clearly rescinded the contested decision, amounts to a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter. It follows that the...

To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a. Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± for the 2020-2021 cycle.

The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations...

The Tribunal must ensure that there is an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment or his or her contract of employment, as provided for in art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Such decision must be unilaterally taken by the Administration, be directed to the staff member, and have direct legal consequences for the staff member.

Since the Applicant¡¯s re-employment and new appointment occurred after 1 July 2007, his eligibility to participate in ASHI is contingent on his fulfilling the criteria laid out in sec. 2.1(a)(ii) of ST/AI/2007/3. Specifically, he is required to have been a participant in a contributory health insurance plan of the United Nations for a minimum of ten years.

In this case, the facts were established and there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed fraud on purpose.

The Applicant¡¯s conduct amounted to a breach of his basic obligations under staff regulations 1.2(b) and (g), staff rule 1.2(i), and the Strategic Framework for the Prevention of Fraud and Corruption.

The evidence is clear and convincing that the Applicant acted with knowledge and intent to mislead (and even with a possible personal economic interest).

Given the nature and gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, the sanction is not absurd, unreasonable, or...

The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant damages equivalent to three months¡¯ net base salary at the P-3 level. The compensation shall bear interest at the United States of America prime rate with effect from the date this Judgment becomes executable until payment of said compensation. An additional five per cent shall be applied to the United States of America prime rate 60 days from the date the Judgment becomes executable.

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 15 November 2021 against the ineligibility to the education grant for French nationals residing in neighbouring France and serving in Geneva was time- barred. As such, this aspect of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case, the 22 September 2021 Administration¡¯s denial of the Applicant¡¯s 2020/2021 education grant claim constitutes a new administrative decision. As such, the 60-day deadline for requesting management evaluation of this decision started to run from 22 September...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested selection decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in selecting the selected candidate.

The United Nations, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being.

This duty of protection applies not only to physical disease, but also to psychological disease.

This implies a duty to intervene promptly to protect the staff member, at risk for his/her health.

it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant¡¯s pathology was related to the work environment and therefore the Tribunal was of the view that the ABCC unduly...