±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...

Judge Meeran handled the case since Judge Kaman issued the judgment on the last day of her tenure with the Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the only conclusion, which could sensibly have been drawn from the fact that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/124 did not address the claim in explicit terms was that either Judge Kaman considered it implicitly covered in the findings or alternatively she overlooked it in her final conclusions on remedies. To the extent that it may have been an oversight, on the basis of a full examination of the record and the judgments, Judge Meeran ordered that Judge Kaman had...

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...

In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU¡¯s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s service should be deemed uninterrupted and continuous on a 100 series fixed-term contract. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant did not suffer any loss with respect to the delay of her family leave, but that she should be awarded USD1,200 as compensation for not receiving her home leave entitlement in December 2009. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the Applicant¡¯s claims of emotional distress as unproven. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that the Applicant satisfied the eligibility criteria for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment and should have been considered for it...

The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (¡°CMP¡±), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants¡¯ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.

Judicial review of disciplinary cases: It was not required or expected of the staff members under the former system of justice to file separate appeals regarding each intermittent stage of the disciplinary process. It is impossible to artificially split the disciplinary process into separate stages after its completion and file separate appeals with the Tribunal with respect to each stage, expecting that they would be considered piece-meal. Moreover, even if that were possible, the Applicant would have been required to submit separate appeals to the JDC or file separate requests for...

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).

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that ¡°[s]eparation as a result of ¡­ expiration of appointment ¡­ shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules¡±. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

.Outcome: The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant USD10,000 in compensation for emotional harm.