In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it has no competency to disturb the award in the judgment, as the Tribunal has already rejected the revision application in Judgment No. UNDT/2019/016. The Tribunal finds that justice would be better served for these matters to be considered by the Appeals Tribunal as there is a further issue that complicates the assessment of compensation herein in light of changed circumstances or new facts.
1)Disciplinary sanction The Applicant failed to disclose that her husband had been employed by UNICEF vendors during the Applicant’s employment with UNICEF and these material facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been sufficiently established and were not in dispute between the parties. The legal framework is sufficiently clear in determining that a conflict of interest may exist even where there is only the possibility that the staff member or the private business with which he or she may have association could benefit from such association. The Administration properly...
Receivability: The Respondent submitted in his reply that the Applicant’s request for compensation was not made within the requisite time limit. However, in denying the Applicant’s claim for compensation, the Administration did not reject his claim on the ground that it was filed late but rejected his claim on the merits and thus the Administration implicitly waived the timeline required under ST/AI/149/Rev.4. Since the contested decision is the Claims Board’s decision to deny the Applicant’s claim for compensation and the Applicant complied with the mandatory requirement of submitting a...
The Tribunal finds the Respondent’s application for interpretation as an attempt to have the Tribunal re-examine its Order, which is not a proper way to seek a reversal or modification of the Tribunal’s Order. As the Appeals Tribunal clearly stated, the exercise of interpretation under art. 30 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is not an avenue for review or the basis for a fresh judgment. It goes without saying that the motion is not receivable and must be dismissed. The Administration provided some reasonable explanation for the contested decision, which is supported by evidence...
The first issue is determining the Applicant’s date of recruitment as that date establishes the legal framework for the Applicant’s eligibility for ASHI. Under the applicable legal framework, staff members recruited before 1 July 2007 would be eligible for ASHI after five years of eligible service, whereas staff members recruited after 1 July 2007 would be eligible for ASHI after 10 years of eligible service. The Applicant held several appointments of limited duration in 2005-2010 before she was re-employed by UNDP on a fixed-term appointment in November 2010. The Tribunal found that, under...
As the Applicant withdrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.
Since the Applicant withrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the cases are closed.
The separation decision for abandonment of post took effect in December 2012, and the Applicant claimed that she received separation related paperwork only in November 2018. The Tribunal decided that the Administration properly followed the procedures, including seeking and obtaining the approval of separation for abandonment of post from the Office of Human Resources Management, and notifying the Applicant at every important step by email and other authorized means in accordance with ST/AI/400 and therefore the separation decision was properly made. The Tribunal found that even if the...
As the parties concur that the correct procedure for the ABCC was not applied and the cases should be remanded to the ABCC for institution or correction of the required procedure, the Tribunal will, by consent, so order. However, since art. 10.4 of the Statute explicitly states that such remand shall be done “prior to a determination of the merits of the case”, the Tribunal is not in a position to pronounce on the substance of the cases (at least Case No. UNDT/NY/2018/011, concerning the ABCC’s initial rejection of the compensation claim and not the subsequent rejection by its Secretary), and...
Given that the Applicant believed that he had to receive the decision directly from the USG/DM he ought reasonably to have concluded that there was an implied decision not to commission a fact-finding enquiry long before his request for management evaluation on 25 April 2017, two years and seven months after he was notified by OIOS that they had referred his complaint to the USG/DM. The interests of both staff members and the decision maker/s are best served by a contemporaneous record of the fact that there was a review under the guidance or delegated authority of the responsible official and...
