±¬ÁÏÍø

The issue raised in the application was not submitted for management evaluation. The application is not receivable. Related

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1)Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2)Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3)Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4)The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

The Applicant timely requested management evaluation of the contested decision and has met the procedural requirements to have this Tribunal adjudicate her case. The application is therefore receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal considered that from provisions in ST/AI/2010/5 and ST/AI/2010/4, derives a general principle to complete performance evaluations before separation applicable also to staff members holding a fixed-term appointment. The Tribunal found that the Organization had to make a balancing exercise of the Applicant¡¯s different performance results and could not simply act as...

The facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established because the Applicant rendered himself publicly drunk over several hours, embroiled in a bar fight, was twice detained by the local police, went out to a bar after curfew drove a ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle while he was legally drunk based on MINUSCA¡¯s zero tolerance policy refused to stop and exit the ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle when signaled by MINUSCA Security Officers, including his superior drove in a dangerous manner. The established facts legally amounted to misconduct because the Applicant¡¯s actions, which included public drunkness, becoming...

The Tribunal found that the application, insofar as it contests the SPA decision and the Reclassification decision, is not receivable. The Applicant submitted his SPA claim three years too late, therefore, his claim is timebarred. As the Applicant never requested reclassification, there is no final administrative decision regarding reclassification. Without a final administrative decision regarding classification, the Dispute Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the Reclassification decision. The Tribunal found that the ToRs decision was lawful on the basis that the Administration...

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican¡¯s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...

Public interest, transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not impaired by the removal of the Applicant¡¯s name from the public domain. Consequently, and taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the facts, which involve alleged ¡°sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person¡±, the Tribunal grants the Applicant¡¯s request for anonymity. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, communicated to him on 23 September 2019, is not grounded on disciplinary considerations, which were the subject of the instant case, and constitutes an autonomous administrative decision...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not established that there was any bias or impropriety which had any impact on the decision not to renew his appointment. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had not provided any information which would assist in production of relevant information and the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to embark upon a full investigation of the matter and could only rely on what had been made available pursuant to its case management powers. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal The Applicant appears to argue that the Administration created an expectancy of renewal of his contract by referring to statements, allegedly made by various individuals of the Organization. The individuals concerned dispute the facts as presented by the Applicant and he has not adduced any written evidence regarding a firm commitment to renewal. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°[i]n order for a staff member¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but...

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...