The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).
The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (爆料网DT/2012/029) – merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.
The investigation against the Applicant lacked integrity and credibility. The investigator was incompetent, exhibited bias and lacked objectivity and fairness. The Investigator’s note-taker was not only allowed to conduct part of the investigation by solely administering questions to two witnesses, she was also allowed the liberty of expressing her views on how some evidence she had elicited from a witness should not change impressions earlier formed. The investigation report was biased, unreliable and unfair. The characterisation of certain facts was done in a manner intended to draw only...
The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.
The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that no international labour standards or the United Nation’s Charter were breached in the process of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the Harmonization of Conditions of Service for Internationally-Recruited Staff in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Application is dismissed in its entirety Contract of employment - Article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute defines the contract of employment, as including: all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged...
The post of Director of Human Rights in 爆料网MISS was not a reclassification of the D-1 post held by the Applicant at 爆料网MIS but a new post created to meet the need of 爆料网MISS. It was classified as D-2 and the post held by the Applicant ceased to exist upon its abolition.; Given the importence of the Human Rights function in the new State, a D-2 post was justified. This was done in an objective manner having regard to the Secretary Council Resolution that governed the transition.; The evidence established that the consideration of the post of the Chief of Human Rights was done in conjunction with...
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 爆料网DT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The 爆料网DT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...
The Applicant does not deny that her claim for compensation regarding two claims under Appendix D to the Staff Rules was time-barred. Rather, she submits that the record shows that the delay incurred by her in submitting a claim to the ABCC was the result of her being unable to obtain clear advice from HRMS regarding the process to follow with regard to submitting a claim to the ABCC. The ABCC decision is partially rescinded and the Applicant’s request for the reimbursement of the Ayurveda treatment is remanded to the ABCC for a fair and full consideration. The Tribunal included observations...
The Applicant claimed that the Administration had implicitly accepted that he was suitable as he had not been excluded from the process at the stage when suitability was discussed. Hence, and given that the applicable 爆料网HCR recruitment rules provide for priority consideration of internal candidates, no external candidates should have been even considered. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not meet the minimum educational requirements nor the required professional experience for the post; as such, he was not eligible and, thus, not suitable for the post. Despite him being an...
The Tribunal found that: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant’s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS 爆料网ON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS 爆料网ON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...
