±¬ÁÏÍø

Compensation: The elements of Applicant¡¯s compensation were: applicable salary, plus post adjustment, less staff assessment, less pension contribution made by Applicant, less amounts paid to Applicant on separation, less mitigation damages earned by Applicant, plus accrued vacation, plus personal distress award of USD4,000, plus e-PAS violation of USD6,000. Pension: Since, based on the facts from Beaudry ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/039, it was unlikely that the Applicant would have had her contract renewed until her retirement, the Applicant would not have qualified for any retirement benefits, including...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Chapter 6.3.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Staff Administraion and Management Manual (SAMM) provides that ¡°staff members on active duty who hold an indefinite or a fixed-term appointment will be entitled to maternity leave with full pay for a total period of 16 weeks comprising a pre-natal and a post-natal period. When the expiry date of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment, which is not considered for renewal, falls before the beginning of the six-week period prior to the delivery date, there will be no entitlement to maternity leave¡±.The Applicant¡¯s contract expired on 31 December 2006. At that time, she...

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/±¬ÁÏÍøON 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 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant...

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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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...

In the present judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, in light of the circumstances of this case, the three months¡¯ net base salary paid to the Applicant for the lack of due process on the recommendation of the JAB report was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the procedural unfairness to be so grave that it warranted additional compensation in the amount of USD15,000 for the breach of the Applicant¡¯s procedural rights. With respect to compensation for actual economic loss, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Respondent shall compensate the Applicant for the actual economic loss incurred by her and that the actual economic loss...

The Tribunal found that both the decision to remove the applicant from her post and the decision to place her on SLWFP constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion pursuant to former staff regulation 1.2 (c) and former staff rule 105.2 (a), respectively. However, the Tribunal also considered that keeping the applicant on SLWFP for four years and four months breached staff rule 105.2 (a), as it did not serve the interests of the Organization. The Tribunal further found that this breach had caused the applicant moral injury for which she should be compensated. Disguised...

1998 reclassification: The issue of the 1998 reclassification exercise is long out of time and no circumstances justify the review of it now. 2005 reclassification: Examining the 2005 reclassification exercise is moot as the post was abolished and the applicant did not challenge the abolition. Withdrawal of SPA: In relation to the period for which the applicant¡¯s SPA was withdrawn, it would be reasonable to expect a notation of a change in functions in the e-PAS records as there was a crossover between two cycles. However, there was none and the SPA should thus be retroactively paid...