51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that after a first positive evaluation in 2012, the Applicant¡¯s first reporting officer had put the Applicant on notice in respect of what she perceived as shortcomings in the Applicant¡¯s performance, at the beginning of the performance cycle 2013/14. It found, however, that the Rebuttal process was marked by serious procedural flaws and ruled that the final decision on the rebuttal, confirming the Applicant¡¯s PAS rating for the cycle 2013, was illegal and could not stand. Therefore, and since the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 30 June 2014 was...

In the Applicant¡¯s view, the Hiring Manager¡¯s alleged favoritism of the candidate finally selected was evidenced by the 19-month delay in advertising the post and a change in the standard language of the experience requirements, without which the successful candidate would have been ineligible. However, the evidence showed that said factors did not have a significant impact on the candidate¡¯s eligibility. Moreover, the slight lowering of the experience criterion was not originated by the Hiring Manager and, while he delayed the advertising he did so to ensure his alternative employment in case...

The UNDT found the application irreceivable in respect of one position due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file a request for management evaluation within the applicable time limit. With respect to the remaining three posts, the Tribunal found that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services) was unlawful, and that the other two selection decisions were not. Consequently, the Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services), set the amount of alternative...

The Tribunal found that the letter of 9 June 2015 constitutes, in essence, merely the implementation of the earlier decision to separate the Applicant from the Organization for reason of post abolition. The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was already adjudicated by Judgment Seyfollahzadeh UNDT/2015/037, affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgment Seyfollahzadeh 2016-UNAT-620. The Tribunal thus found that the matter was res judicata, and rejected the application. Res judicata: If a termination letter constitutes the mere implementation of an earlier decision to terminate the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.

The Tribunal found that the non-extension of the Applicant¡¯s appointment in UNAMI was not a termination but her mission assignment simply came to an end after the maximum two years. The Applicant¡¯s challenge of the administrative decision to restrict her mission assignment to the maximum of two years is not receivable as she failed to request for management evaluation. Receivability - Even if by any stretch of reasoning it was open to the Applicant to challenge the conditions of her mission assignment which she had accepted on 28 January 2013, time began to run for her to challenge that...

Lateral reassignment: The Tribunal held that the decision to laterally transfer the Applicant was lawful as it fulfilled the conditions for such a transfer as set out in Rees. The new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; the responsibilities involved corresponded to his level; the functions to be performed were commensurate with the Applicant¡¯s competence and skills and the Applicant had substantial experience in the field. Reasons for the contested decision: The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s complaints about the lack of or the adequacy of reasons for the decision were unsubstantiated...

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Provision of adverse material to the Applicant: The Tribunal noted that the ABCC had information before it that was adverse to the Applicant¡¯s claim when it reached its recommended decision but did not disclose to the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant should have been given the opportunity to see and comment on the adverse material. In failing to afford him this basic right the ABCC violated the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Service incurred injury: The Tribunal concluded that it was not within the competence of the MSD medical advisor to provide...

The Dispute Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and rejected the application. Application of ST/AI/2010/5 on Performance Management and Development System: This administrative instruction does not apply to UNFPA, which is a separately administered fund, as it has not explicitly accepted its applicability, as per ST/SGB/2004/9 on Procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances. Obligation to provide an opportunity to improve performance prior to non-renewal: Absent any specific provision in the applicable rules, the Organization has no legal obligation to take any...

UNDT held that the conduct of the Acting Chief of Mission Support and the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisor constituted an abuse of authority in their treatment of the Applicant. Given the gross injustice meted out to the Applicant by her managers, UNDT awarded her compensation representing twelve months' net base salary. UNDT awarded the Applicant three months¡¯ net base salary as moral damages. UNDT awarded the Applicant USD5,000 for the unfair treatment at the hands of her managers. UNDT noted that the two managers literally destroyed the Applicant¡¯s career and made decisions in clear breach of...

Investigations in disciplinary proceedings - Investigators should obey the paramount considerations of fairness, detachment and scrupulous objectivity. Evidence of bad character or disposition to establish that show that an individual being investigated has a propensity to commit an act of misconduct should not be relied on unless a past act of misconduct is also part of the investigation. Such evidence cannot lightly be invoked or presented in a court of law and it should not influence the findings of an investigator or those whose responsibility it is to initiate disciplinary proceedings...

UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner¡¯s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members¡¯ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner¡¯s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members¡¯ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has neither submitted a request to the ASG/OHRM for exceptional grant of an ex gratia payment under staff rule 12.3(b) nor has he submitted a Management Evaluation Request in respect to the same. The Applicant has not complied with staff rule 11.2(a). As such, the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae under art. 8.1(c) of its Statute. SPA and ex gratia payments - The legal bases for the grant of SPA are set out in staff rule 3.10 and ST/AI/2003/3. The aforementioned rules do not provide a legal basis for the grant of an ex gratia...

Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...

The Tribunal determined that the matter put to it is the filling of a P-3 translator vacancy in RTS, UNOG, by a lateral transfer, under sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, instead of through a competitive selection process, which would have then required the advertisement of a vacancy announcement for the concerned post on different grounds his non-selection for the post of Chief, Russian Translation Unit, UNON. This is a decision having direct effects on the Applicant¡¯s rights, hence appealable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that filling a vacancy through a lateral transfer of a staff member...

The Tribunal noted that: (a) there was no female member in the assessment panel, (b) the panel¡¯s evaluation of the candidates was substantially modified between its adoption by all three panel members and its scrutiny by the competent Central Review Committee (¡°CRC¡±), (c) the Hiring Manager failed to transmit his final recommendation to the decision-maker; instead the CRC Secretariat forwarded the selection record (with only one recommended candidate) to the decision-maker, and (d) the Applicant was not notified of his non-selection within the prescribed 14 days of the decision; rather, he...

The UNDT found that the contested decision was unlawful on the grounds that 1) the Organization committed several procedural errors in the implementation of the UNHCR Policy and Procedures for the Promotion of International Professional Staff Members (UNHCR/HCP/2014/2) (¡°Promotions Policy¡±), some of which resulted in a failure to take into account relevant information or to take into account irrelevant considerations; and 2) the Organization failed to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion received fair and full consideration. Standard of review: In the context of a...

Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...