±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration¡¯s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- ±¬ÁÏÍøAT-892, i.e., the Administration¡¯s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK Administration¡¯s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration¡¯s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal¡¯s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to ¡°pick and choose¡± what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...

The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant¡¯s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was ¡°ITC¡±, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

The Administration has established that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in a conflict of interest in procurement processes and that he misused ±¬ÁÏÍøDP property.

Under relevant rules and regulations, the Applicant clearly had an obligation to disclose fully and accurately his personal connection with Prime Options and St. Paul¡¯s, which were grounds to support a conflict of interest, and to recuse himself from any involvement in the procurement processes involving those two vendors. However, neither did the Applicant disclose the actual or possible conflicts of...

The application fails in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not discharged the burden of proving improper motives or bias against the Respondent.

Of all the eight alleged acts/omissions on which the Applicant based the complaint that his "partially satisfactory" rating was motivated by bias and ill-motive were speculative and the impugned assessment was not tainted by bias or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the fact that the Talent Management Review Group did not afford the Applicant an opportunity to present his case could not, ground a finding of bias and improper motive.

±¬ÁÏÍø, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being.

This duty of protection applies not only to physical disease, but also to psychological disease.

This implies a duty to intervene promptly to protect the staff member, at risk for his/her health.

it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant¡¯s pathology was related to the work environment and therefore the Tribunal was of the view that the ABCC unduly...

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...

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...