51ÁÔÆæ

La contestation contre le processus Umoja et sa r¨¦ponse automatis¨¦e au demandeur, telle que pr¨¦sent¨¦e dans cette application, n'est donc pas ¨¤ recevoir ratione materiae. S'il n'y avait aucune mesure dans le cas individuel pr¨¦cis du demandeur mais qu'il n'y avait que des mesures g¨¦n¨¦rales applicables ¨¤ tous les membres du personnel, il n'y a pas de d¨¦cision administrative aux fins de la poursuite d'un appel ¨¤ recevoir au Tribunal. Si l'action qui est contest¨¦e n'a produit aucune cons¨¦quence juridique directe, il s'agit d'une nouvelle lacune dans l'objet d'un appel qui ne le rend pas ¨¤ recevoir.

Les questions pertinentes ont ¨¦t¨¦ ignor¨¦es. Le calendrier et les circonstances des ¨¦valuations du demandeur, les cong¨¦s de maladie pris, la nature de la cession de quatre mois en 2018 et les raisons de celui-ci sont pertinents. Ces facteurs ont ¨¦t¨¦ pris en compte pour d¨¦terminer qu'un exercice appropri¨¦ du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'intim¨¦ aurait ¨¦t¨¦ de consid¨¦rer une ¨¦valuation des travaux du demandeur pour la p¨¦riode de quatre mois en 2018. Le demandeur ¨¦tait en cong¨¦ de maladie pendant les sept premiers mois des sept premiers mois de L'ann¨¦e, mais il n'y a aucune disposition dans le cadre...

Les plaintes du demandeur ont ¨¦t¨¦ renvoy¨¦es une fois de plus aupr¨¨s de l'intim¨¦ pour une enqu¨ºte appropri¨¦e conform¨¦ment au cadre r¨¦glementaire. L'intim¨¦ doit fournir au demandeur une copie de sa transcription et de son r¨¦sum¨¦ (le cas ¨¦ch¨¦ant) pr¨¦par¨¦s par le fournisseur ext¨¦rieur et utilis¨¦s dans l'enqu¨ºte pr¨¦c¨¦dente.

La conclusion de non-r¨¦ivabilit¨¦ d¨¦pend dans une certaine mesure de la perception de la finalit¨¦ des mots utilis¨¦s dans l'e-mail de d¨¦cision. Il y a un certain degr¨¦ d'incertitude et les questions soulev¨¦es sur les m¨¦rites sont d'int¨¦r¨ºt g¨¦n¨¦ral. Par cons¨¦quent, l'application de l'approche adopt¨¦e par le Tribunal des appels des Nations Unies (?Unat?) dans HAQ et KANE 2019-UNAT922 Les questions li¨¦es au fond de l'affaire seront ¨¦galement d¨¦termin¨¦es. La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ne faisait pas partie d'un processus avec de nombreuses ¨¦tapes. Il ¨¦tait complet en soi et a ¨¦t¨¦ clairement exprim¨¦ comme...

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to...

The Respondent had no clear and convincing evidence on which to decide on dismissal of the Applicant for violating Ivorian law in 2007 by accepting payment to produce false passports and committing fraud. On a literal interpretation of staff regulation 1.2(b), the Applicant engaged in misconduct. His negative response to the PHP question about prior indictments, fines or imprisonment amounted to an intentional withholding of required information pertinent to the Organization¡¯s background integrity checks. The answer was neither truthful nor honest. The Applicant certified in his PHP that he...

The Tribunals¡¯ jurisprudence underscores that the key characteristic of an administrative decision is that it must produce adverse consequences for a staff member¡¯s employment contract or terms of appointment. Decisions that extend a contract, even on a short-term basis, are in the staff member¡¯s favour and do not adversely affect their rights. It is only after a report has been made and processed purusant to ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) that its handling may be the subject matter of a case before the Tribunal. It...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months¡¯ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months¡¯ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent¡¯s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

The Applicant became aware of her de-rostering in 2017 and it became apparent in 2020, after three years of enquiries that she was in fact de-rostered. She only requested management evaluation on 6 June 2021, several months beyond the 60-day deadline. The Tribunal also found that the impugned decision did not constitute an "administrative decision" as defined in United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2003). The change of rostering status complained of did not involve a final decision taken with direct legal consequences for the Applicant¡¯s rights and obligations...

Concerning the corrective measures: To the extent that the fact-finding panel¡¯s investigation resulted in a finding of actions on the part of the Applicant that called for corrective measures in the form of training and counselling, the Respondent¡¯s actions were procedurally proper. The cautionary corrective measure of providing training and counselling for the Applicant was appropriately taken in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5 in circumstances where, although there was no misconduct, the Applicant¡¯s manner of performing his duties caused a staff member to feel harassed. Concerning the decision...

UNDT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. UNDT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. UNDT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. UNDT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant¡¯s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has complied with every aspect of the regulatory framework. Specifically, regarding the complaint that the Applicant was not provided with details of the allegations that led to the investigation, there is no requirement for such disclosure when informing a staff member that they will be placed on leave with pay at the initial stage of an investigation. This differs from the circumstances where the decision being made is placement on leave without pay. There is no indication that the Respondent acted other than in full compliance with the regulatory...

UNDT found the application materially receivable as it concerned a decision that was appropriately the subject of judicial review. UNDT found that the decision to reassign the Applicant rather than place her on administrative leave, was taken balancing her best interest with those of the Organization. These reasons were supported by evidence. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving any improper motive, irregularity or unlawfulness on the part of the Respondent in the decision to re-assign her duties. UNDT therefore held that the presumption of...

The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant¡¯s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant¡¯s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent¡¯s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...

The Applicant¡¯s complaints were remanded once more to the Respondent for a proper investigation in compliance with the regulatory framework. The Respondent is to provide the Applicant with a copy of her interview transcript and summary (if any) prepared by outside provider and used in the prior investigation.