±¬ÁÏÍø

Staff rule 111.2 (a) requires that a staff member who wishes to challenge an administrative decision to request the Secretary-General, within two months of notification of the said decision, for the decision to be reconsidered. This period starts from the notification of the first refusal decision. The sending by the administration of decisions confirming a first refusal does not reopen the deadlines. However, it is up to the judge to ascertain before rejecting a time-barred request that the staff member has not been misled by the administration on the terms of his appeal.

On consideration of the totality of the applicant¡¯s particular situation, the Dispute Tribunal held it was an exceptional case with exceptional reasons justifying an extension of time. An extension of time to file was granted.

Staff members with permanent appointments are afforded additional protections, particularly when nearing retirement age. Administration¡¯s obligation to protect the position of a permanent staff member includes, at least, an enquiry and the taking of reasonable steps to ascertain if there were any suitable positions available for the staff member. The staff member is required to cooperate in this search but the responsibility for protecting the position of the permanent employee is primarily with the employer.The universal obligation of both employee and employer to act in good faith towards...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant could not be recruited from his general service post to the professional level without undergoing the required examination. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded three-months salary as compensation for the distress caused by the Organization.

The Tribunal found that the appeal against the first decision was both time-barred and without merits, and that the appeal against the second decision was time-barred. The Tribunal further concluded that the respondent had properly exercised his discretionary authority in deciding not to refer the investigation panel¡¯s findings to the ASG/OHRM. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal and the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusal decisions are...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant¡¯s case was limited to the amount of adequate compensation for the failure to adequately and timeously consider his complaint and that his other claims, including with respect to the termination of his appointment, were not properly before it. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration was required¡ªbut failed¡ªto undertake an adequate and timeous initial inquiry into the applicant¡¯s allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant substantiated his claims of emotional distress and injury and must be compensated for it. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant failed to show that...

The purpose of compensation: Since the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in, had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the Tribunal first determines the likelihood that the Applicant would have been offered a hypothetical new contract and thereafter the characteristics of it. Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had...

The meaning of any legislative provision is ascertained by the meaning of its words in the light of the intention of the rules as a whole. Where the wording of an instruction suggests that no exception is permitted, a number of common law jurisdictions have found the mandatory or directory dichotomy inappropriate.To establish the meaning and intention of a ±¬ÁÏÍø provision the relevant context is the hierarchy of the ±¬ÁÏÍø¡¯s internal legislation. This is headed by the Charter of the ±¬ÁÏÍø followed by resolutions of the General Assembly, staff regulation and rules, Secretary- General bulletins and then...

The applicant¡¯s supervisor should have recused himself from the Management Review Group (MRG) that reviewed the performance reports to avoid conflict of interest. However, this procedural irregularity was mitigated by the subsequent report of the Rebuttal Panel. Outcome: Respondent to pay the applicant the equivalent of one-month net base salary for suffering and stress.

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...