The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not based on improper motives as had been alleged by the Applicant. Rather, UNDP had acted farily and transparently. Thus the Tribunal held that there was no illegality, irrationality and unfairness in the impugned decision.
The Respondent’s argument that the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within 60 days was rooted in the erroneous belief that the MOU, which expressly states that it constituted notice that the Applicant’s appointment would not be renewed beyond 29 February 2020 and that she would be separated as a result, related to the Applicants general right to be reabsorbed into MINUSMA. The right to a general lien is intrinsic to a secondment, meaning that it is inalienable and so the Applicant could not have contracted herself out of it. The notice of separation and...
The established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules. There was evidence that the totality of the circumstances, including mitigating factors such as the Applicant’s long service with the Organization and her admission, albeit only after the Organization’s discovery of her fraud, were considered in keeping with set principles. There was basis for the assertion that the practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters shows that measures at the stricter end of the spectrum have normally been imposed by the Organization in cases involving falsification of...
The contested decision arose from an agreement signed on 21 April 2020 between the Applicant and UNICEF to terminate her appointment. If the Applicant had wished to contest the circumstances of her termination agreement, she ought to have requested management evaluation by 20 June 2020. She however, submitted her request on 18 January 2021, almost seven months later, and outside the 60-day period. The request for management evaluation was time-barred and thus the application was not receivable.
The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of UNRWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that UNRWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of UNDT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.
The Applicant has not shown that the negative employment decision had any direct adverse consequences on her contract. The Applicant’s argument that the decision was used by the Administration not to renew her temporary employment is without merit. She has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim. On the contrary the Respondent has shown that the temporary employment expired at the end of the maximum 364 days offered in the contract. The Applicant has failed to convince the Tribunal that the decision not to renew her temporary employment was a direct consequence of the decision from...
The Tribunal finds that the recovery of CHF2,838 constituting financial loss occasioned to the Respondent through the Applicant’s private phone calls is not a relevant consideration to the determination of the proportionality of the sanction. This is because the recovery is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 10.2(b)(ii) which expressly clarifies that recovery of monies owed to the Organisation is a not a disciplinary measure. The Applicant has failed to show that he deserves a more lenient sanction than the one imposed. His impecuniosity, resulting from the sanction is...
The Tribunal held that with respect to the decisions of June 2018 on deductions on account of child support and 24 September 2018 on recording the Applicant’s status as “divorced”, the application is not receivable. The Tribunal rescinded the decision of 18 September 2018, because as admitted by the Respondent in his response to Order No. 190 (NBI/2020), this administrative decision had been issued in error. All other pleas were rejected.
The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant’s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (“CRP’). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...
The Tribunal found that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarized, was implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person and the right to challenge this decision, founding the claim on specific grounds related to the Administration’s assessment of the facts. The jrusiprudence acknowleges the right of the complainant to have a summary of the report is recognized too, and it is confirmed that only under exceptional circumstances...
