±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the allegation that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant¡¯s filing of his application was prompt and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s claims with regard to the issue of lien and loan were without merit. With respect to the issue of placement on special leave without pay, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant should have been placed on sick leave on half salary and half annual leave for a period of up to three months. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered the Respondent to make appropriate adjustments, including any related payments and adjustments to benefits and entitlements, to reflect the placement of the Applicant on three months of sick leave on half pay combined with half-day of annual leave commencing 22...

In view of the Applicant¡¯s submission, the case was found moot and the application was dismissed. The Applicant alleged that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA reneged on an undertaking made in her previous application for suspension of action in May 2012, thus frustrating her temporary engagement. The Respondent submitted that the Administration had no objections to the Applicant going on a non-reimbursable loan, and that successful efforts were made to find the Applicant a temporary assignment with the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (¡°±¬ÁÏÍøMIT¡±). The Applicant subsequently filed a submission informing the...

Following the filing of the application for suspension of action, the Respondent filed a submission stating that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA had agreed to allow the Applicant to retain a lien against her post and, accordingly, the application should be dismissed as moot. In response, the Applicant submitted to the Tribunal that, although ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA had agreed to grant her a lien on her post, as a result of this decision not made earlier, she would be placed on special leave without pay due to the exhaustion of her sick leave and annual leave days, pending finalization of arrangements for temporary employment in New York...

The Applicant¡¯s letter of appointment stated that his appointment was subject to termination in the interest of the Organization, as determined by the Secretary-General. By signing his letter of appointment, the Applicant agreed that his appointment could be terminated, in addition to the reasons stated in the staff regulations and rules, this additional discretionary clause. The Tribunal considers that the determination of the interest of the Organization is the Secretary¡¯s General exclusive attribute and the circumstances under which the Secretary-General is to determine ¡°the interest of the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration reconstituted the fact-finding panel in January 2013, following the filing of the application, which was therefore moot. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, even if the application were not moot, it would not be receivable as the Applicant did not comply with the requirement of first requesting management evaluation prior to filing her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the argument that the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on account of her being a former staff...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision was in violation of an express written promise of renewal for three months by the head of her mission.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found, on the one hand, that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA decision to close the case given the conclusions of the investigation constituted a valid exercise of discretion by the Administration, and that the Organization did not breach the Applicant¡¯s rights by not sharing the full investigation report with her. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA failed to take diligent action with respect to the Applicant¡¯s complaint and that it incurred inordinate delays both in reviewing and assessing the Applicant¡¯s complaint and in setting up a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation into her...