±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the non-renewal appeared to be based on a mission-wide retrenchment exercise and that it appeared that the Applicant served in an occupational group and against a functional title impacted by the downsizing of MINUSTAH. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the panel responsible for carrying out a comparative review of the affected staff members erred in applying the agreed evaluation criteria when assessing the Applicant and other staff members in the related category.Outcome: The application for suspension of action was rejected.

The contested decision was to go into effect on 1 June 2012. The initial papers were received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2012, and the Applicant subsequently re-filed her papers as proper application on 30 May 2012. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the urgency in this case was created by the Applicant as she was aware of the contested decision at least since 13 April 2012, and yet filed her proper application only two working days before the decision was to be implemented, providing no explanation for not filing it earlier. As the condition of particular urgency was not met, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not find it...

Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not commit the misconduct of providing false information in his annual leave report. The Respondent correctly established the facts for the remaining charges of the misconduct. However, the Respondent did not fully take into account all the mitigating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction. The Tribunal found the disciplinary measure disproportionate to the misconduct and modified it. The contested decision is rescinded. The disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of...

There being no evidence that real ongoing informal resolution efforts took place between the date on which the Applicant was notified of the decision on 26 May 2011 and when he filed his request for management evaluation on 4 August 2011, the time limit was not extended and his request for management evaluation was not receivable (time barred). The Tribunal concludes that there was no genuine informal resolution efforts conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and there was no request for extension of time addressed to the Secretary-General by the Applicant. The 4 August 2011 request for...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...

A Graduate Certificate is not equivalent to a Bachelor¡¯s or Master¡¯s degree. The correspondence from the Charles Darwin University confirms that ¡°a graduate certificate does not replace, or is equivalent to a bachelor degree, it simply has similar entry requirements in terms of previous education or experience¡±. The Applicant therefore did not have a Master¡¯s degree or equivalent, or a first-level University degree. Removing the Applicant from the roster of preapproved candidates. When the Administration intends to deprive a staff member of a certain status or right that may otherwise have...

The Applicant, a former P-3 level staff member of MINUSTAH, sought rescission of the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract. The Respondent asserted that non-renewal was lawful since the Applicant was provisionally reassigned to MINUSTAH when MINURCAT was downsized and his provisional reassignment was contingent upon him receiving FCRB clearance. As the Applicant never received FCRB clearance, his contract was not renewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, following his initial offer, the Applicant received 12 subsequent letters of appointment which did not expressly or by reference refer to him...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was not afforded proper priority consideration for the CISS post under the framework established by staff rule 9.6(e). He, therefore, lost a fair chance of being selected for the CISS post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that the decision not to select the Applicant was vitiated by the arbitrary and inconsistent application of the requirement of ¡°Headquarters experience¡±. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has already mitigated his losses for some part of the relevant period and received compensation for the rest of the lost earnings as part of Lemonnier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/186...