51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. UNAT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...

The Respondent contended that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed because of financial and staffing considerations, namely the ending of temporary funding for the Applicant¡¯s position. The Applicant contended that this reason was not legitimate and that the decision was tainted by discrimination and based on other factors that were not disclosed to him. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent created an expectancy of renewal of his appointment as a result of the promises given to him by his supervisor. He further submitted that his due process rights were violated during an...

In light of the Applicant¡¯s withdrawal of his application for suspension of action and subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there is no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution, without determination of its merits, and the case is closed.

On the basis that there had been no filing since the granting of the suspension of action, UNDT found there was no longer any matter for adjudication and the case was closed.

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The Applicant asserts, inter alia, that she was harassed and discriminated against and that her performance evaluation process was not in accordance with the established procedures. UNDT found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was based on lawful grounds and was not vitiated by any improper considerations or procedural errors. UNDT found, however, that there was an unreasonable delay in the rebuttal process. Although this delay had no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision, it caused emotional distress to the Applicant, for which she shall be compensated...

Reassignments: Staff regulation 1.2 grants broad discretion to the Secretary-General in making reassignment decisions. However, such discretionary power is not unfettered: it is subject to respect for due process, and the absence of bias, discrimination, arbitrariness, or other extraneous motivations. While section 2.4 ST/AI/2006/3.Rev.1 envisages only lateral transfers to vacant posts, it does not preclude other kinds of transfer to be lawfully made. The decision contested in the present case does not contravene the said section 2.4, but falls beyond this provision¡¯s purview and, therefore...

The Tribunal finds that both appraisal processes are tainted with procedural flaws. The first performance appraisal did not result in new ratings being given by the rebuttal panel. The second performance appraisal was based in part on the earlier assessment and it did not give sufficient time to the Applicant to improve his performance. Though the Administration is not bound to apply administrative instruction ST/AI/2002/3 to evaluate the performance of 300 series staff members, once it has decided to apply the administrative instruction, the latter must be fully complied with. In the present...

The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. UNDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. UNDT found that the Applicant...

With regard to due process requirements, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been afforded a hearing in regard to the charges alleged against him. Whilst the language used in the last paragraph of the USG¡¯s letter dated 8 November 2005 seemed to suggest that if the JDC made a request for the physical presence of the Applicant in Geneva such a request would be acceded to, the Tribunal was of the view that the JDC did not indicate in clear terms that the presence of the Applicant would be essential, the word used in Rule 29 and the USG¡¯s request did not violate the Applicant¡¯s rights to...

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the transfer decision was arbitrary or based on improper motives. Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. In the case at hand, the only decision that was the subject of a request for management evaluation, and that is therefore properly before the Tribunal, is the decision to transfer the Applicant laterally from Cairo to Abu Dhabi. The Applicant¡¯s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish his post and of...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.

The main issue was whether time taken off during part of the workday should be counted towards the ¡°scheduled workday¡± and actual work (¡°hours of work¡±) requirements when calculating compensatory time off or additional payment for overtime. UNDT found that time spent on annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off is not included in the actual work time, but is counted towards the scheduled workday. UNDT found that DGACM¡¯s application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules was correct and that the Applicants failed to explain how the allegedly unlawful amendments to DGACM¡¯s policy and...

UNDT reiterated that, as it had held in Adorna UNDT/2009/012, the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the propriety of the letter of reprimand were not receivable and this case was limited to the following contested decisions: (i) the refusal to allow the Applicant access to the investigation report; (ii) the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s legal expenses; and (iii) the refusal to issue internal and public announcements acknowledging his exoneration. UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request for the investigation report was reasonable and that the obligations of good faith and fair dealing required...

The Tribunal finds that the decision to summarily dismiss the applicant is not tainted by any irregularity, that the facts are established, that they amount to misconduct and that the sanction of summary dismissal is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. UNDT jurisdiction: The Tribunal has no power to compel a person external to the Organization to appear before it as a witness. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine whether the procedure followed was regular, whether the facts in question are established, whether...

UNDT found that the Applicant did not challenge the non-renewal of her contract in a timely manner and also did not rebut her final e-PAS rating as partially meeting expectations, which rating must be accepted by UNDT as final. UNDT found that the Applicant was aware, during her employment, of the criticisms concerning her performance and that it would have been reasonable for her to conclude that performance-related factors may have been considered by the Administration in deciding not to renew her contract. UNDT found that under Costa 2010-UNAT-036 it does not have the power to waive or...

The Tribunal dealt with the notion of ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± in the light of the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal, the UNDT and the UN Appeals Tribunal. It reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. The Tribunal considered whether it could find any exceptional circumstances, as alleged by the Applicant that could justify a waiver of the receivability requirements, pursuant to staff rule 111.2 (f) of ST/SGB/1999/5 of 3 June 1999. Initially the Applicant submitted before the JAB that the fact that...

The Tribunal will not order the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement as were the original harm repaired, the Applicant¡¯s appointment would already have ended. While the evidence before the Tribunal suggested that extensions of secondments beyond the five-year limit were possible under UNDP policy, the Tribunal was not convinced that it was probable in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the renewal would have been limited to the five-year restriction and compensation was warranted for that period, less the Applicant¡¯s actual income. Account is taken of the context of the contractual breach i.e...

The early termination of his contract was not based on a proper or lawful evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance. In the absence of a comprehensive and fair performance evaluation done at the time, the reasons given by the Respondent cannot be regarded as cogent or reliable because the Applicant did not have an opportunity to refute, answer or rebut them. They therefore represent just one side of the story and, however strongly felt by the Respondent, are not a reliable basis for a lawful termination of the contract before its expiry date. This is not a question of improper motivation...