±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant is ¡°not contest[ing] the proportionality of the sanction(s) imposed¡±. Consequently, the Tribunal need only consider if not reporting another staff member¡¯s violation ST/SGB/2004/15 was correctly considered by the Respondent as being the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, whether his due process rights were respected and whether all the mitigating circumstances were taken into account. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant requested, and was denied, either access to counsel or further opportunities to defend himself during the investigation conducted by OIOS. With...

The Applicant is ¡°not contest[ing] the proportionality of the sanction(s) imposed¡±. Consequently, the Tribunal need only consider if not reporting another staff member¡¯s violation ST/SGB/2004/15 was correctly considered by the Respondent as being the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, whether his due process rights were respected and whether all the mitigating circumstances were taken into account. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant requested, and was denied, either access to counsel or further opportunities to defend himself during the investigation conducted by OIOS. With...

Following successful settlement discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing all of her allegations and claims. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated in the judgment that, the dispute having been settled by way of a settlement agreement, the Applicant withdrew her case fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The case was closed without liberty to reinstate or appeal.

Following the Tribunal¡¯s judgment on receivability (Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/149) and inter partes discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement or appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The fact that a staff member is no longer employed by the Organization does not mean that the Organization is not required to notify him or her of the completion of an administrative proceeding related to his or her current or past employment. With respect to the completion of an investigation into allegation filed against him or her, a former staff member benefits from the same rights as a current staff member, including that of being informed of any decision taken by HR related to an investigation of which he was the subject and, as stated in Applicant ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/069/Corr.2, ¡°the right to...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision that the Applicant was not eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment was lawful.

The Applicant contended that the transfer decision was unlawful in that it was arbitrary and adopted and implemented in breach of mandatory procedures and that ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD senior management acted in bad faith and with ulterior motives when doing so. The Respondent submitted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD senior management acted within its margin of discretion and on properly reasoned grounds based on the Applicant¡¯s skills and qualifications and the operational needs of ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD both in New York and Geneva. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided to the Applicant for his transfer were not justified by the...

The Respondent submitted that the application was filed out of time as the Applicant had submitted it after 5 p.m. (closing hour of the New York Registry) on the last filing day. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Statute and the Rules of Procedure provide that applications are to be filed within 90 calendar days from the date of notification of the outcome of management evaluation, and, therefore, the applicant had until the expiration of the last calendar day of the filing period to file his application, regardless of the working hours of the Registry. Having done so, his application was receivable...

The Applicant was denied eligibility for conversion because in 2006 she had a break in service of eight days, which interrupted the continuity of her service. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the main issue in the case was whether the break in service in 2006 can be taken into account for the purpose of conversion to a permanent appointment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the break in service that took place in 2006 shall not be taken into account because the Applicant was induced into taking it, without proper legal basis, as a condition for her employment in New York. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered rescission of the decision...