±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration¡¯s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/094. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87¨C88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal¡¯s order in para. 87 of Sprauten ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration¡¯s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

The Tribunal found that the selected candidates, which were endorsed by the Central Review Board, were graded above the Applicant and that there was no merit to his claim of impropriety regarding the selection process which was lawful and was not tainted by bias or other improper considerations. Participation of former incumbent in selection process: The Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual does not limit an incumbent¡¯s involvement with regard to the selection of his or her successor for a post that has already been vacated. Therefore his presence on the interview panel did not affect any of the Applicant...

This case was first decided by the Dispute Tribunal by Leboeuf et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/206, rendered on 30 November 2010. The case, however, was remanded by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal for ¡°further proceedings¡±. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicants' claims against the lawfulness of the change introduced in December 2004, with effect from January 2005, are time-barred and not receivable under arts. 8.3 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider them and the application was receivable only with respect to the subsequent application of the policy on...

The parties agreed that the facts were not contested and that the issue for the Tribunal¡¯s consideration was whether the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities was proportionate to the Applicant¡¯s conduct. Taking the mitigation circumstances into consideration, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the sanction was not proportionate to the facts and substituted it for the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnities. The Tribunal agrees with the facts that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was improper and that she...

The Applicant requests the Tribunal to find that his due process rights were breached, that a copy of the report from the Investigation Panel be produced to him. There is no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not follow the applicable procedures or that his due process rights were not respected. It is within the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion as to whether or not initiate action against a staff member. The case is dismissed.

Finality of disputes: The desirability of finality of disputes in proceedings requires that a party should be able to raise a valid defence of res judicata, which provides that a matter between the same persons, involving the same cause of action, may not be adjudicated twice. Res judicata: Once a matter has been determined, parties should not be able to re-litigate the same issue. An issue, broadly speaking, is a matter of fact or question of law in a dispute between two or more parties which a court is called upon to decide and pronounce itself on in its judgment. The object of the res...

The Applicant contended, inter alia, that WFP breached her due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings and she did not breach any of the applicable rules. The evidence before the Tribunal sustained the Applicant¡¯s contention that WFP¡¯s investigators did not respect her due process rights. The ground of appeal related to the irregularity of the disciplinary proceeding is accepted and the Tribunal does not need to analyse the rest of the Applicant¡¯s contentions. The rescission of the contested decision is, per se, a fair and sufficient remedy for the moral prejudice caused to the...

There is no contestable administrative decision over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction, rather the Applicant is seeking to have the Tribunal substitute its view for that of the Arbitration Committee with regard to an internal ±¬ÁÏÍøSU matter. The application is not receivable rationae materiae. As indicated in Kisambira Order No. 36 (NY/2011), the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters involving the internal affairs of a staff association. The application is not receivable.