±¬ÁÏÍø

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate ¡°rebuttal¡± procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...

Since the applicant, in a timely manner, addressed his requests to competent officials within the former system of internal justice and followed the advice received from them, it was beyond his control that he did not file his request for administrative review within the time limits; therefore, exceptional circumstances are given. In view of the provision of the letter of appointment quoted above, no termination was possible without keeping a thirty days notice period. The decision to terminate the appointment with immediate effect is in noncompliance with the applicant¡¯s terms of appointment...

Articles 2(1) and 2(1) (a) of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT define a contract of employment to include ¡°all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of the alleged non-compliance. There is nothing before the Tribunal to evidence that the Applicant signed any LOA in relation to the offer made by the organization to employ him on the terms defined in the reassignment memorandum dated 10 June 2008. The reassignment memorandum contained terms that were not certain, that were qualified and cannot therefore besaid to have been a final and binding...

The application is prima facie not receivable before the ±¬ÁÏÍø Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

Assignment grant: Rule 107.20 clearly envisages a situation in which a newly recruited staff member from an area ¡°within commuting distance of the duty station¡± would be entitled to an assignment grant where he had been ¡°settled¡± in the duty station perhaps by a former employer who due to the new recruitment would no longer take responsibility for such things as his accommodation. He would be given the assignment grant to ¡°resettle¡± himself, as it were. By the same token, a newly recruited staff member who had previously worked for the Organisation for a period of time as a consultant and most...

The applicant had a real and substantial chance of appointment of around 50 percent and that the appointment would have lasted until his 2010 retirement date. USD2,000 nominal compensation awarded for loss of the chance to work in New York.

The application for deferral of judgment pending the outcome of the appeal is refused. The Respondent is to appoint an official of at least the rank of USG to consider afresh the complaints of the Applicant in respect of the conduct of the SG. The official is to launch an investigation, as appropriate, under staff rule 10.1 if it is reasonable to suspect that the SA acted in such a way as to justify the imposition of a disciplinary measure.

Accountability referral: the USG¡¯s conduct in dealing with the complaint of the Applicant and in giving evidence to the Tribunal is referred to the SG for...

Outcome: The application is not receivable. A consideration of the merits also would have found it to be rejected in its entirety as no retaliatory motivations were established.

Outcome: The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Even though the contested decision resulted in a reduction of the Applicant¡¯s responsibilities, by removing from her all authority over this section which she previously managed, the challenged decision is in itself a simple decision of organization of a service, which is not open to appeal before the Tribunal. Indeed, it results from the Staff Rules and from the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that a staff member may only contest before the Tribunal an administrative decision which affects his or her rights as provided for in his or her letter of appointment and administrative issuances applicable to...