51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member¡¯s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...

He filed his request for administrative review on 2 December 2008 and his application before the Tribunal on 13 January 2010. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was first informed of the contested decision, in writing, on 5 February 2008, and that he also received written reiterations of the same decision in March and April 2008. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to request administrative review of the decision not to renew his contract within the applicable time limit and that the Tribunal was proscribed, under Costa 2010-UNAT-036, from waiving it. The Tribunal found that, even...

The Administration did not have a legal obligation towards the Applicant to take action at any stage in relation to the fraud. No legally relevant relationship between OCHA and the Applicant existed; the fact that the Applicant¡¯s aunt submitted her applications to a UN staff member did not create such a relationship. No Organization is bound to respond to uninvited applications for jobs that the Organization had not previously announced. Neither OCHA nor any other Organization can be made liable for criminal abuse of its name and reputation.The Applicant, who resigned from her post in UNFPA...

The Applicant made good faith efforts 51ÁÔÆæ his financial disclosure obligations for 2005. The Secretary-General failed to take into account the various mitigating factors in favour of the Applicant when determining the sanction against him. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was far more excessive than was necessary for obtaining the desired purposes of the financial disclosure program. The appropriate disciplinary measure in the present case should be a reprimand.

The Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the established time limit. Authority of the Tribunal to waive the deadlines for management evaluation: The Appeals Tribunal held in several judgments that pursuant to article 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no authority to waive the deadline for management evaluation, including where exceptional circumstances may have prevented the staff member from complying with the deadline. Authority of the Secretary-General to waive the...

The Tribunal found that ST/AI/292 had been complied with, in particular paragraph 2 which provides that adverse material may not be included in the personnel file unless it has been shown to the staff member concerned and the staff member has been given an opportunity to make comments thereon. The Administration not only can but must place in a staff member¡¯s personnel file all documents related to his/her service, provided the provisions of ST/AI/292 have been complied with.

The e-PAS report for 2007-2008. The Applicant¡¯s behaviour was not appropriate or cooperative, placing her first reporting officer in a difficult position. Nevertheless, under ST/AI/2002/3, it is the duty of the first reporting officer, as well as the head of department and managers with supervisory authority, to make sure that the staff member¡¯s individual work plan is completed on time, and the Organization remains ultimately responsible for the implementation of the e-PAS system. The e-PAS report for 2008-2009. A one-year delay in signing-off on an e-PAS report is clearly improper under sec...

The case was not time-barred. As in Mezoui: (1) the Applicant had requested from the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal an extension of time to file her application; and (2) such extension was granted with a time limit of 30 June 2009 (the last day of the functioning of the Administrative Tribunal). The following additional factors were also taken into account: the Applicant¡¯s personal circumstances; the significant delays of the JAB proceedings compared to the relatively short delay on the part of the Applicant; and the Applicant¡¯s difficulties in finding out where to file the...

When the Administration takes a decision which confirms an initial decision, the time limit to contest the decision starts to run from the date of the initial decision. In the case at hand, while the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 2 November 2009, he only requested management evaluation of this decision on 31 March 2010. He thus failed 51ÁÔÆæ the established time limit to request management evaluation. When a staff member wishes to contest a decision which, in his view, is unlawful because of the incompetence of the body which took the decision, he/she should...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment of limited duration carried no expectancy of renewal and that there were no countervailing circumstances which could have created such expectancy. It also found that the reason for non-renewal, namely the negative impact that allegations then made against the Applicant in the local media could have on the Organization, was supported by the facts and that the non-renewal decision therefore constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion. Scope of discretion of the Secretary-General in non-renewal cases: It is within the...

Placing the Applicant on SLWFP. This Tribunal agrees with and adopts the Kamunyi reasoning that former staff rule 105.2 did not permit placing a staff member on SLWFP where an investigation was being made into possible wrong-doing by that staff member. The formal nature of the OIOS/PTF investigation. For an investigation to be regarded as merely preliminary in nature, some ¡°reason to believe¡± must exist that a staff member has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, but the investigation must not have reached the stage where the reports of misconduct are ¡°well founded¡± and where a decision already...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The procedures set out in ST/AI/2002/3 on the performance appraisal system were not complied with. While section 8.3 requires that as soon as a performance shortcoming is identified, the first reporting officer should discuss the situation with the staff member and take steps in consultation with him/her to rectify the situation, in the present case the Applicant received the rating ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± without being informed through the performance appraisal system of his shortcomings and thus without being given the opportunity to improve his performance. Since the...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

In accordance with staff rule 7.6(e), the Applicant¡¯s official departure date from Vienna was on Sunday, 14 March 2010, a non-working day in Vienna. Pursuant to section 5.2 of ST/AI/2006/4, had he departed on that date, he would not have been entitled to an additional day of annual leave to compensate for official travel on a non-working day. The fact that the Applicant chose to travel on a working day for reasons of personal convenience shall not have the effect of granting him a benefit to which he would not have been entitled had he travelled on the official date of travel.

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Respondent submitted, inter alia, that the present application was time-barred as it was not filed within 90 days from the date of receipt by the Applicant of the management evaluation. The Applicant submitted that the filing of the present application was delayed due to exceptional circumstances, namely his attempts to resolve the matter informally, including with the assistance of OSLA. The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than four months after the expiration of the relevant time period. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant¡¯s informal discussions with the...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.