51ÁÔÆæ

The UNDT found that the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was not supported by the facts and that the decision was indeed based on extraneous factors. The decision of the ITC Senior Management Committee to merge several existing programs was never really implemented. A generic P-4 post was advertised in early 2012 under the new program, and funded through budget lines already available when the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment was taken. The available evidence shows that the real motive of the decision was the fact that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning and benefits because the case corned the Ethics Office¡¯s decision that the Applicant had not been retaliated against and not the circumstances regarding his separation from UNDP. As for non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, high-handed and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the failures...

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s argument that this was a case of non-renewal and found that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated on the grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance for the period of 2007 to 2010. The UNDT found that the performance evaluation report (¡°PER¡±) for 2010 cannot be lawfully relied upon to justify the finding of unsatisfactory performance as the Applicant had no opportunity of a meaningful rebuttal. Therefore, the termination of the Applicant¡¯s contract on the basis of poor performance was unlawful. The UNDT also found that no proper...

With respect to the first contested selection process, the UNDT found that the Applicant was properly considered for it but was determined as not suitable. With respect to the second contested selection process, the UNDT found that the Respondent¡¯s explanation that the post was not filled due to reasons not related to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy was credible. The UNDT rejected the application.

Before the Tribunal, following its Judgment Johnson UNDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-UNAT-240, the Respondent does not contest anymore that the Applicant by using her foreign tax credit paid as a matter of fact part of the taxes due. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor of the Applicant and orders the Administration to carry out a new calculation of the 2010 staff assessment deductions that ought to be reimbursed to her.

The UNDT sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn in its entirety, including on the merits, with no right of reinstatement. The Applicant having confirmed that she was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement, the UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of her application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required 51ÁÔÆæ his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not suffered any material or moral prejudice. With regard to OSLA¡¯s refusal to provide her with legal assistance, the Tribunal found that the decision is not illegal since there was a conflict of interest . The Applicant is a staff member of OSLA and her application before the Tribunal concerns a written reprimand issued by her immediate supervisor, the Chief of OSLA.

As regards her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that the ratings resulting from the rebuttal processes had replaced the initial ratings and that hence the e-Pas reports cannot be annulled. Concerning the inclusion in the OSF of documents arising from the rebuttal processes relating to her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that only the documents specified in ST/AI/2002/3 and ST/AI/2010/5 are to be included in her OSF. It also found that the irregularities in relation to her e-Pas reports were of such gravity as to render them meaningless and that they are thus not be included in her OSF. The...

As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for rescission of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that it was irreceivable insofar as decisions to extend a staff member¡¯s appointment are not decisions adversely affecting a staff member and thus are not subject to appeal. As regards the Applicant¡¯s request for a two-year renewal, the Tribunal further found that there were no legal provisions stipulating a particular duration of a fixed-term appointment.

The Tribunal found that the decision to consider the Applicant as ineligible was legal and did not violate any of his rights.

Following the Tribunal¡¯s judgment on receivability (Judgment No. UNDT/2012/149) and inter partes discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement or appeal. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the ¡°serious weaknesses in his performance¡± on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, UNON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, UNON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent¡¯s case. UNON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant¡¯s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant¡¯s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...

. The Applicant claimed that the reason for the contested decision was not disclosed to her until the management evaluation stage and that the reason given was not supported legally or factually. The UNDT found that UNICEF was obliged to provide the Applicant with a reason for the non-renewal of her contract when she requested it. The UNDT found that according to the performance ratings provided prior to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract, her performance, as a matter of law, cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory based on secs. 5.2 and 10.2 of CF/AI/2010-001 (Administrative instruction...

Of the 153 candidates who applied for the post, five were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The UNDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The UNDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

Of the 128 candidates who applied for the post, three were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The UNDT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The UNDT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...

The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant¡¯s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.