51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former UNAT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-UNAT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...

As a staff member on an FTA, the Applicant had no right in law to have his contract renewed. The decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Applicant was taken for legitimate business needs in that it was within the discretion of the decision makers within OCHA to conclude that the functions being performed by the Applicant at the time were part of OCHA¡¯s core mandate and that there was not the need to have a dedicated unit to carry them out. Having arrived at this decision and having regard to the need to streamline services and effect the required cost savings it was legitimate for OCHA...

The Tribunal dismissed the application. Whereas the Applicant contended, that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3 (Sick leave), his contract should have been extended beyond its expiry date, in order to allow him to avail himself of the right to exhaust his sick leave the Tribunal found that there was no evidence that (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provided for its applicability to UNOPS and that the Applicant did not show that UNOPS accepted the applicability of the policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the Applicant¡¯s contention that it was unlawful to separate him from service...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that UNISFA¡¯s decision of 17 April 2016 was of a general kind pursuant to the restructuring and was not a decision of individual application to the detriment of the Applicant. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s claim that the contested decision was motivated by abuse of power, ill will directed against his own interests or any other improper motive, the Tribunal held that the the Applicant had provided no arguable case to support his position.

The decision to refuse further medical evacuation was first notified to the Applicant on 15 July 2014 but he did not request management evaluation until 29 January 2017 after later requests for medical evacuation had been refused. The application was not receivable because subsequent reiterations of the same decision did not have the effect of resetting the clock for management evaluation.

Noting that there is nothing in the strict interpretation of section 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 to exclude a series of discrete acts performed by more than a single individual from constituting prohibited conduct for which the Organization bears responsibility, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of institutionally enabled, or tolerated, harassment did not relate to one off incidents. Under ST/SGB/2008/5, the ES¡¯s duty was to examine the complaint in its entirety to see whether it raised issues of prohibited conduct to which the Applicant may have still been suffering from. Instead...

The Applicant did not show that the findings of the Rebuttal Panel together with her final performance appraisal resulted in an administrative decision to her detriment. Although the delay in finalizing the Rebuttal Panel Report was far in excess of the period contemplated under ST/AI/2010/5, the delay did not constitute an error of procedure in light of the reasons advanced by the Respondent. In accordance with section 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5, it was mandatory for the Administration to place the report of the Rebuttal Panel on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and that there was no exercise...

Since a PIP was not put in place prior to the expiry of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, she could not rely on section 10.5 of ST/AI/2010/5 for the renewal of her contract. The Administration extended the Applicant¡¯s contract several times despite her refusal to accept the offers of contract extension. These extensions were deemed contrary to a strict application of the requirements of section 4.4 of ST/AI 2013/1 and inconsistent with administrative regularity. However, MONUSCO continued to extend the Applicant¡¯s contract in the hope of persuading her to cooperate with the PIP. It was...

The application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion excercisable ¡°in exceptional circumstances¡± because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...

The Tribunal held that the managers concerned acted in accordance with the obligations placed on them by sections 9 and 10 of ST/AI/400. Given the fact that the Applicant absented himself from work in Sector East without proper authorization and failed to heed the advice and requests sent to him, the Organization did not act unlawfully in taking steps to place him on SLWOP. Moreover, it was lawful for the Organization to take steps to recover payments made in advance in respect of education grant and travel in circumstances where such advances were not utilised for the purpose for which they...

The Tribunal found that the decision to separate the Applicant for abandonment of post was not unlawful because: the Applicant was absent from duty he did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for failure to report to work the Administration followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal laws of the Organization and the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the impropriety that he alleged.

Disciplinary process and agreed separation: While the fact that an investigation for misconduct was ongoing was not in itself a basis for excluding the Applicant from consideration for agreed separation outright, as this was not one of the non-eligibility factors set forth in the relevant rules, the Administration was entitled to take into account the outcome of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process when carrying out its consideration to award a discretionary benefit on to a staff member.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal referred the case to the UNDP Administrator due to...

Termination for misconduct vs. termination for facts anterior: Termination on the basis of staff regulation 9.3(a)(v) and staff rule 9.6(c)(v) is not to be confused with a measure involving separation as a result of disciplinary proceedings, including in cases where the facts in question could have constituted misconduct. Neither the procedure, nor the standard of proof is to be transposed from one to the other. Regarding in particular the standard of proof applicable to ¡°facts anterior¡±, in the absence of a clear applicable legal norm or ruling of the Appeals Tribunal, it may not be assumed...

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Applicant did not comply with the requirement of staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation within the period of 60 days from the date of notification of the decision. The deadline expired on 12 January 2014, but she requested management evaluation on 12 February 2014.

The fact-finding panel established that the allegations were well founded and the conduct in question amounted to possible misconduct. In the circumstances, the mandatory language of section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 required a referral to the ASG/OHRM for disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures. Failure to make such a referral on the part of the Head of Mission was an error of procedure which denied the Applicant his contractual right to be afforded the benefit and protection against prohibited conduct in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. The Administration...

Taking into consideration the Respondent¡¯s response that the internal processes had not yet reached finality, the Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter until such time as all applicable and relevant procedures had been concluded. Consequently, the application was deemed premature and dismissed as irreceivable.

The UNDT found that there was change of official duty station and that, as a result, the application of Entebbe¡¯s post adjustment rate and payment of DSA for only 30 days were lawful. The Tribunal also dismissed all the other Applicant¡¯s contentions. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal examined the receivability of the application given that the parties disagreed on the date on which the Applicant ought to have known of the decision. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. Receivability ¨C Notification of an administrative decision: The Administration is obliged to communicate...

Findings of fact by the Appeals Tribunal ¨C As a matter of general principle, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to question a finding of fact or a ruling on the law as set down by the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability ¨C A staff member who raises a credible claim which needs to be tested ought not to be shut out at a preliminary stage. There is a difference between a claim that is clearly not receivable because it does not challenge an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1 and a claim which on the face of it raises an apparently credible challenge that a decision of general...