51ÁÔÆæ

In the preliminary assessment of the complaint, the responsible official correctly reviewed not only the Applicant¡¯s allegations but also the evidence he provided. The responsible official reasonably (a) found no grounds to believe that the subject of the complaint had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, and (b) concluded that the evidence did not reveal a pattern of harassment. No evidence showed that the authority to review the complaint had been unlawfully delegated or any other procedural irregularity. While the responsible official could have better spelled out the managerial measures...

The Applicant missed the 90-day deadline to file the application which is, therefore, time-barred.

There is nothing in the wording of sec. 2.5(a) that prescribes for ruling out of the count of one-year assignments that were preceded by an assignment that lasted less than a year. Accordingly, even though the prior assignment of nine months in Cairo did not itself count as an assignment, the following period in Tripoli, which was for one year, fully meets the requirements to be counted as an assignment. The Tribunal finds that there is no room to interpret the relevant provisions to claim, like the Respondent does, that his return to Tripoli in April 2012 should be considered as a...

The application is not receivable. The management evaluation request was not receivable because the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The case is moot since a cheque for the reimbursement of a dental claim was already issued prior to the filing of this application. There is no longer any administrative decision to be contested, and the dispute is resolved. It appears that the only remaining issue is an arrangement to make a payment of the bank fee by issuing a cheque or transferring money to the Applicant¡¯s account. This is not a legal question for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon. Regarding moral damages, she has failed to provide any evidence to support her claim of moral damages in either her request for management...

The Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment. As the Applicant held a fixed-term appointment which expired, staff rules 9.6(e) and (f) do not apply. Therefore, the Administration had no obligation to make efforts to retain the Applicant. The application is therefore not receivable.

The issue raised in the application was not submitted for management evaluation. The application is not receivable. Related

Pursuant to staff rule 9.6(c), the Secretary-General may terminate the appointment of a staff member who, like the Applicant, holds a continuing appointment in accordance with the terms of the appointment on the grounds of ¡°unsatisfactory service¡±. The Secretary-General has delegated this authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management (USG/DM) according to annex IV on delegation of human resources authorities to ST/SGB/2019/2 regarding delegation of authority in the administration of the Staff Regulations and Rules (see p. 21). No exception to this delegation of authority is made...

The Applicant¡¯s conduct was in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and rule 1.2(f) and constitutes misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did make efforts to persuade her supervisee to forego attempting mediation to resolve their interpersonal disputes and threatened that mediation could adversely affect her supervisee¡¯s career. In particular, the Applicant implied that should her supervisee pursue mediation, her supervisee would develop a bad reputation and that mediation lacked confidentiality. The Applicant further indicated that there may be a negative impact on the chances of...

The Tribunal rejects the application as not receivable. The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 13 November 2017 was filed more than 60 days after the notification of the decision on 31 March 2017.