51ÁÔÆæ

Legitimate expectation ¨C The Country Office¡¯s Core Management Group meeting of 29 February 2012 decided that all international staff, including the Applicant, would be extended for one year and the Applicant knew of the decision. This Tribunal finds that the decision taken at a regular and proper Country Office Core Management Group meeting to extend the contract of a staff member, which decision is embodied in open recorded minutes and accessible to staff members, carries far greater weight than any ¡®express promise¡¯ that can be made to the said staff member about extending his contract. The...

In reviewing a decision not to renew an appointment, the role of the Dispute Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion not to renew was validly exercised. Where justification is given by the Respondent for the exercise of its discretion, that justification must be borne out by the facts. Both Parties have told the Tribunal that the Applicant took his grievances to the Retention Committee, which Committee then reviewed the Applicant¡¯s claim and found that the Retention Panel (which the Applicant chaired) had properly carried out the exercise it was charged with. The Tribunal is also...

Receivability: Noting that the Applicant submitted his Application 3 days before requesting management evaluation of the contested decision and that his request for management evaluation was submitted a month after the deadline for the statutory delay, the Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable.

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Hearings in disciplinary matters: The Tribunal held that it is the duty of the Judge to decide whether the nature of the case is such that a hearing may be dispensed with. The Judge should consider the following factors: (i) the issues raised and their complexity; (ii) the availability and relevance of witnesses; (iii) the stand of the Applicant and that of Respondent; and (iv) the legal issues involved...

Receivability - Mr. Wallace as a Legal Officer in MEU had the requisite delegated authority to make an exception to the Staff Rules in suspending the time limits for the Applicant to request for management evaluation as he did in the present case. The Applicant¡¯s case was therefore held in abeyance until 30 March 2011. The Applicant, as a result, had until 30 June 2011 to file her Application which she did on 6 June 2011. Full and fair consideration - All the candidates that appear before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. A candidate challenging the denial of a...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as time-barred, as the Applicant failed to submit a timeous request for administrative review/management evaluation.

Application of ST/AI/2002/4 to field mission personnel: The Tribunal held that since ST/AI/2002/4 excludes field mission staff members, like the Applicant, from its ambit it could not be made applicable in the current matter in the absence of a formal decision by the Secretary-General to make the administrative instruction applicable to a staff member who is clearly excluded from its purview. The Tribunal also held that ST/AI/2002/4 could not be made applicable to the Applicant by invoking the best practices rule or argument. Implementation of selection decisions: The Tribunal concluded that...

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

The Applicant subsequently filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

There is no contestable administrative decision over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction, rather the Applicant is seeking to have the Tribunal substitute its view for that of the Arbitration Committee with regard to an internal UNSU matter. The application is not receivable rationae materiae. As indicated in Kisambira Order No. 36 (NY/2011), the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters involving the internal affairs of a staff association. The application is not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the Applicant lacked legal standing, and that the second part of the application, while receivable, was unfounded, since the Secretary-General, who has the duty to facilitate the holding of the elections to the UNSCP, had no power, whatsoever, to interfere in the actual conduct and results of the elections.

The UNDT decided to join both cases and following a review of the procedure followed, found both decisions to be illegal. It ordered the rescission of both decisions and that a new decision be taken on the Applicant¡¯s complaint. It also considered that the irregularities committed resulted in undue delay in the handling of the complaint, which caused the Applicant moral harm warranting compensation of 8,000 Swiss francs.

Res judicata: The Tribunal held that a request made to or a decision of MEU does not operate as an express or disguised form of res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies as a rule to judicial decisions. Thus, the Tribunal is not bound by the finding of MEU except for the limitation put on its judicial powers by having a suspension of action, which is a judicial order, lapse following a finding of MEU, which is strictly an administrative decision. Priority consideration: The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was found unsuitable for the post, the failure to consider his...

Request for management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that the Applicant had submitted a request to any entity or individual, including the Secretary-General, mandated to receive management evaluation requests as he did not provide any address, physical or electronic, of these entities or individuals. Nor did the Applicant provide any acknowledgment of receipt of any request for management evaluation by the Administration. The Tribunal subsequently held that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that he had indeed submitted a request for management evaluation of...

The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...

The Tribunal found the Applicant¡¯s acceptance of the implementation of the agreement, his failure to raise the allegations of duress until well after two years after the mediation and his failure to proffer any supporting evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s claim of duress is devoid of any merit. Burden of proof - Where an Applicant alleges that an agreement was imposed upon him by duress, the burden lies on him or her to convince the Tribunal that such is the situation. Res Judicata - Where the subject matter of an application has been settled between parties...

UNDT held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before UNDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. UNDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. UNDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...