±¬ÁÏÍø

Non-renewal: A non-renewal decision can be taken on the basis of a projected reduction of workload; in assessing future workload, the Administration necessarily has to make some prognosis, on the basis of the elements available at the time of the contested decision. Factual developments relating to the future workload after the date of the decision have to remain out of consideration, and do not have an impact on the legality of the decision under review. Extraneous factors: The burden of proof with respect to extraneous considerations falls on the Applicant. Ultra vires: A non-renewal...

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 application registered under Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2015/182, insofar as it is directed against the decision to discontinue the post encumbered by the Applicant, is not receivable ratione materiae. In his application registered under Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2016/039, the Applicant contests his separation from service effective 2 March 2016 and the non-renewal of his appointment, as a result of the abolition of his post. This is an administrative decision resulting from the restructuring and the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post. Merits Procedural regularity The noncompliance with a...

Disciplinary process and agreed separation: While the fact that an investigation for misconduct was ongoing was not in itself a basis for excluding the Applicant from consideration for agreed separation outright, as this was not one of the non-eligibility factors set forth in the relevant rules, the Administration was entitled to take into account the outcome of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process when carrying out its consideration to award a discretionary benefit on to a staff member.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal referred the case to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Administrator due to...

The Tribunal found that the Administration did not respect its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(i) and 9.6(f) to retain the Applicant and the Applicant¡¯s correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G7 step 10) or at a lower level in ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR NY, or at her Professional level or lower in the parent Organization. The Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s claim in part, rescinding the contested decision and ordering the Respondent to retain the Applicant with retroactive effect from 31 December 2016 in any current suitable available post(s), or in alternative, the...

The Tribunal found that the decision to separate the Applicant for abandonment of post was not unlawful because: the Applicant was absent from duty he did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for failure to report to work the Administration followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal laws of the Organization and the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the impropriety that he alleged.

The allegations of soliciting and receiving money from several ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS International Individual Contractors (IICs) were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the established facts legally amounted to misconduct under the staff regulation 1.2(g) and staff rule 1.2(k) because in 2014 and 2015, the Applicant solicited and/or accepted monetary payments from the IICs knowing that these payments were being made because of assistance he provided or was believed to have provided in his position as a finance assistant with the Organization. In the absence of a request for management...

The Tribunal held that MONUSCO¡¯s 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum unambiguously informed the Applicant of the mission¡¯s decision to end his appointment, which at this point was a continuing appointment, by separating him from service on 24 October 2014. The Tribunal held that the 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum was an administrative decision because it had a direct and adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual status and had direct legal consequences for him. The Tribunal concluded that the FPD/DFS response of 31 October 2016 was a reiteration of the 17 October 2014 decision...

Discretion of investigators: Duly authorised investigators have a discretion to determine the information that they deem relevant to gather and probe further. However, such discretion is not unfettered. Investigations must be conducted in a fair, balanced and impartial manner.

Admissibility and value of evidence: Circumstantial evidence, as well as hearsay, are admissible in the Organization¡¯s internal justice system. However, their probative value is more limited than that of direct evidence. Mere statements of witnesses holding that the Applicant had engaged in other instances in behavior...

The Applicant failed to comply with art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.