51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claim regarding separation from service was not receivable ratione materiae. With respect to his non-selection, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had satisfactorily established that there was a flaw in the recruitment process and that this flaw had breached his right to due process. He was awarded 3 months compensation. Bias: The Tribunal concluded that by not shortlisting the Applicant initially due to an uninvestigated incident from 2009 it was obvious that the decision makers had already formed an adverse view of the Applicant. Consequently, doubt...

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant¡¯s father had the legal status of an independent contractor for the WFP Mombasa office, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s father was not a staff member of UNDP and as such, the Applicant has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

Administrative decision: The Tribunal noted that at the time the application was filed, there was a contestable administrative decision. However, subsequent to the filing, the Respondent overturned its initial finding of ineligibility and by so doing it expunged the administrative decision upon which the application was predicated. Consequently, there was no longer a contestable administrative decision to be considered by the Tribunal.

The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s explanations for how the missing card came to be in his possession were so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. He was shown to have had the opportunity to take illegal possession of the card and stood to make a pecuniary benefit from so taking it. There were several material inconsistencies in the Applicant¡¯s case and he was found not to be credible, contradicting himself in the course of the investigation and in his testimony before the Tribunal. The facts upon which the sanction was based were established and amounted to serious misconduct on the part of...

In the present case, the decisions to decline access to documentation were not substantive administrative decisions. Access to documents for the purposes of the Applicant¡¯s claim before the Tribunal is an evidentiary matter resolved by orders of the Tribunal. The decision not to include the Applicant in the professional roster following competency based interviews for the Fukuoka post was lawful as it was taken after a selection process conducted in accordance with the procedures required by ST/AI/2010/3. There is a presumption of regularity in the staff selection processes ¡°that official acts...

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

Duty to report receipt of overpayments - The Applicant failed in his duty to make the Organization aware of overpayments made to him, as provided for in section 2.4 of ST/AI/2009/1. The wordings of ST/AI/2009/1 create a duty for staff members not only to report the receipt of overpayments but also to take steps to ensure their recovery. In other words, it necessarily prohibits the unauthorised prevention of said recovery. Proportionality of disciplinary sanctions - Taking into account all the mitigating factors, the sanction of termination imposed by the Respondent was not proportionate to the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure of the Administration to follow its own guidelines and its rules and procedures, namely: UNON management abused its authority in refusing to release the Applicant on mission assignment to UNAMID and in denying him the grant of a lien on his post. The failure by the Ethics Office in refusing to act on the basis of the report of retaliation filed by the Applicant and its failure to take all necessary action to protect the Applicant from retaliation.

Receivability -...

The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant¡¯s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review was not receivable.