±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member¡¯s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The application is DISMISSED in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant¡¯s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary ¡°administrative action¡± would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent¡¯s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is challenging an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with his terms of appointment or his contract of employment and is not challenging the legitimacy of General Assembly resolution 66/234. The application is accordingly receivable.

The General Assembly resolution, Staff Rules, and the ICSC principles and guidelines are clear and unambiguous. These rules stipulate that GS staff wishing to apply for a professional post must first pass the G to P exam unless exceptional approval for a waiver is granted.

Staff at level FS-5 and...

This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.

The application is dismissed.

The issue was whether the Applicant was entitled to education grant for his son¡¯s last year of a five-year degree program which includes two semesters (approximately one year) of no cost/no tuition co-operatives/internships.

The Tribunal held that since the Applicant's son was enrolled in his educational institution during years three and four of his programme, during which the co-op semesters were part of the curriculum, there was no basis not to count years three and four as school years. As these years entailed less expenses on account of tuition not being paid during the co-op semesters...

The right of the Applicant to a correct level of classification of the post and a fair level of pay derives from the effective functions performed in the years, always the same at least from 2018, functions which - according to the acknowledgement of the Administration itself - correspond to the FS-5 level.

The Applicant is entitled to a compensation calculated as the difference in salary, allowances, and other entitlements between the FS-5 level and the FS-4 level, for the period November 2018 to September 2022, plus interest at the rate correspondent to the rate of inflation, including the...

The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant¡¯s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.

The Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.