±¬ÁÏÍø

As the Appeals Tribunal stated in Bowen 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-183, the Applicant¡¯s termination indemnity should be taken into account when awarding compensation. This is consistent with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s pronouncement in Warren 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-059 that ¡°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¡±. Therefore, as both the termination indemnity and the payment in lieu of notice stemmed from the improper termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, these sums shall be deducted from...

The sanction was based on a finding that the Applicant had engaged in misconduct when he left a hand-held radio and an MP5 9 mm submachine gun with two magazines and approximately 60 rounds of ammunition ±¬ÁÏÍøATtended in a ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle that he had been operating, resulting in these items being stolen when an unknown person or persons broke into that vehicle while the Applicant waited several minutes in a restaurant for a take-out meal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Tribunal found that the imposed sanction was not manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, obviously absurd or flagrantly arbitrary. It was within the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the element of the application concerning conversion to permanent appointment was not receivable as the Applicant had not requested management evaluation of this decision. In respect to the receivable elements of the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal. However, the Tribunal found that the decision not to renew his appointment was unlawful, as it was based on a flawed performance management process. In particular, in the Applicant¡¯s first performance cycle, there were significant delays in the implementation of the various...

The Applicant, as a former Service Contractor, does not have standing to submit an application to the Tribunal pursuant to article 2.1 and 3.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9(6)(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s termination was unlawful because he did not receive proper...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...

The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

Appeals against Ethics Office: ±¬ÁÏÍø Appeals Tribunal has consistently held that the role of the Ethics Office under ST/SGB/2005/21 is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and that such recommendations do not in themselves affect terms of appointment of staff members. the review made by the Ethics Office is not a substitute to the internal system of justice, which includes the Dispute Tribunal. Therefore, filing of a complaint with the Ethics Office does not replace the requirements of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, its Rules of Procedures, and the Staff Rules. Any...