±¬ÁÏÍø

Non-renewal: A non-renewal decision can be based on a mere reduction of work, based on a workload prognosis¡ªmade at the time of the decision. This can lead to a situation where a regular budget post remains vacant without actually being abolished. There is no legal obligation for the Administration to renew a staff member¡¯s FTA based solely on the fact that the respective post is funded. On the contrary, it may be in the best interest of the Organization to save money instead of using available resources at all cost. In assessing future workload, the Administration necessarily has to make some...

Formal requirements: It is justified to request a complainant to conform to the requirements of format and content of secs. 5.11 and 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. However, as a matter of fairness, the same degree of exigency must be required from the different complainants. Purpose and material scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated to address very specific kinds of conduct, defined in its sec. 1. Re-characterizing allegations of a different nature and having them investigated under the bulletin is a misuse of the procedure. Investigating a complaint and its counter-complaint together...

Administrative decision: Advice from OAIS about where to submit a complaint that does not fall within the scope of its authority does not produce any direct legal consequences to the legal order and, therefore, does not constitute an administrative decision.In the absence of a specific time limit in the applicable rules and regulations for finalizing PAD rebuttals, a former staff member has no right to compel the Administration to investigate misconduct for a delay in the completion of a PAD rebuttal process; therefore, the absence of a response to such request does not constitute an implied...

he second case was filed to address the Respondent¡¯s contention that the first case was not receivable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was not required to seek management evaluation since the impugned decision followed the completion of a disciplinary process. Pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the Applicant was required to file his application with the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of notification of the contested decision. The Applicant, however, first sought management evaluation and subsequently missed the 90-day deadline for filing with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found...

The Tribunal concluded that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment (FTA) was unlawful because he was erroneously subjected to a recruitment and selection process after he had been successfully transitioned from ±¬ÁÏÍøMIS to ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS as the sole candidate for the post of State Coordinator in Aweil. The Applicant was awarded compensation of one year¡¯s net base salary. Lateral transfer: The Tribunal noted the absence of important terms in the 19 December 2010 letter regarding the length of the assignment and reabsorption and concluded that the Applicant had, in fact, been laterally...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that there is a difference between a contested administrative decision and the grounds relied on to impugn the decision and noted that neither of the two issues remanded for the consideration of the Tribunal was included in the list of administrative decisions which the Applicant requested the MEU to review. The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant raised the issue of the non-conversion of his temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment, he did so as a ground for contesting the specified decisions. He did not identify this issue as a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

Receivability: The filing of a recourse application as per ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Promotions Policy suspends the time limit to submit a request for management evaluation of a decision not to grant promotion only if it is timely done; otherwise, the deadline for requesting management evaluation runs from the date of notification of the initial decision, unless an extension of time is granted or the deadline is waived by the competent authority.

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that the Applicant had the option of lodging a formal complaint of gender discrimination under ST/SGB/2008/5 but chose not to. However this does not prevent her from alleging, as she does, that the classification decision which she is challenging was ill-motivated by reason of gender discrimination. The Tribunal concluded that in determining whether the decision to abolish her post was ill-motivated it is competent to examine each of the Applicant¡¯s allegations against the relevant facts and circumstances.