±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal accepted the application in part. It awarded the Applicant one-month¡¯s net base salary for moral damages and two-months¡¯ net base salary for breach of her employment contract. The Tribunal found that the manner in which the Applicant was treated by the ESCWA management deserved compensation. The evidence showed that the Applicant was removed from her functions without prior notice. She was requested to turn over her security pass and leave the premises immediately. She was not allowed to enter the premises without authorization. In this regard, the Tribunal found that compensation...

The Tribunal examined the alleged procedural errors in the appointment of the investigation panel and the conduct of its investigation, before turning to examine the alleged errors in the making of the contested decision itself. Appointment of the panel The Tribunal found that the panel, appointed by a responsible official (the then Executive Director OAJ) who had a conflict of interest, was not constituted in accordance with sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It was illegal and void ab initio. A decision maker cannot, knowing the basis of a request for recusal, take important steps in a process such...

The decision did not adversely affect the Applicant The Tribunal referred to its judgment Featherstone ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/117 whereby, inter alia, the decision denying the Applicant a conversion of her fixed-term appointment to a permanent appointment was rescinded and the case was remanded to the ASG/OHRM for retroactive individualized consideration of the Applicant¡¯s suitability for conversion of her appointment to a permanent one as mandated by ST/SGB/2009/10. The Tribunal was satisfied that by the decision of 17 November 2016 (the contested decision), the Organization complied with the terms of...

The Respondent submitted that the case was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not concern an appealable decision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim and found the case receiveable.

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant¡¯s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found not...

It is unequivocally incumbent upon the Organization to provide anyone who files a complaint with a properly reasoned decision, especially when the complaint is being rejected. This also enables the staff member to promptly exercise other available options including a challenge to that decision. Endless email communications do not provide staff members with finality of a determination, thus placing them in a precarious situation if they are to challenge such a decision taking note of statutory time-limits.; This Tribunal found that the decision of the former ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Representative PCO not to...

The Tribunal examined the alleged procedural errors in the appointment of the investigation panel and the conduct of its investigation, before turning to examine the alleged errors in the making of the contested decision itself.; Appointment of the panel; The Tribunal found that the panel, appointed by a responsible official (the then Executive Director OAJ) who had a conflict of interest, was not constituted in accordance with sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It was illegal and void ab initio. A decision maker cannot, knowing the basis of a request for recusal, take important steps in a process...

The parties disagreed as to the date the contested decision was notified to the Applicant and the Tribunal had to determine which of the communications triggered the running of the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation.; It was uncontested by the Applicant that he was informed, unequivocally, by his manager on 28 October 2015, that his contract was going to be terminated effective 31 January 2016 and that he was being placed on special leave with full pay as of 1 November 2015. He was also unequivocally informed on that date that he would no longer have access to his emails and...

The Tribunal is of the view that in light of the oral evidence presented to the factfinding panel by the FRO and SRO, instead of them following the recommendations of the second rebuttal panel to initiate and provide real support to the Applicant at every stage of the process, they continued their negative behavior towards the Applicant and they did not temporarily rotate/assign him to another position in a different Unit for the following six months (up to one year starting from 19 March 2014), and to allow for the continuation of his third probationary year. The Tribunal concludes that the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to investigate her complaint under ST/SGB/2008/5 against the Chief, Languages Services (¡°Chief LS¡±), and fifteen of her colleagues and, following the investigation against two individuals, the decision to take managerial action against only one of the staff members she had complained about.; Receivability; Since the Applicant failed to request timely management evaluation of the decision not to investigate her complaint against the Chief, LS, and fifteen other staff members,; notified to her on 30 March 2017, these claims in...