±¬ÁÏÍø

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant¡¯s contract should not be renewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member¡¯s contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party¡¯s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the conduct of the Acting Chief of Mission Support and the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisor constituted an abuse of authority in their treatment of the Applicant. Given the gross injustice meted out to the Applicant by her managers, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded her compensation representing twelve months' net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded the Applicant three months¡¯ net base salary as moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded the Applicant USD5,000 for the unfair treatment at the hands of her managers. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the two managers literally destroyed the Applicant¡¯s career and made decisions in clear breach of...

Investigations in disciplinary proceedings - Investigators should obey the paramount considerations of fairness, detachment and scrupulous objectivity. Evidence of bad character or disposition to establish that show that an individual being investigated has a propensity to commit an act of misconduct should not be relied on unless a past act of misconduct is also part of the investigation. Such evidence cannot lightly be invoked or presented in a court of law and it should not influence the findings of an investigator or those whose responsibility it is to initiate disciplinary proceedings...

Standard of proof in disciplinary cases - In disciplinary proceedings it is well settled now that the evidence must be clear and convincing and that would include identification evidence. Evidence of misconduct must be clear and convincing. Findings of fact by the trial judge - As a trier of facts, a first instance judge has the means and power to assess the veracity and accuracy of a witness. The findings of fact of a trial judge should rarely be reversed on appeal unless the findings are so perverse that no reasonable person would have come to the conclusions reached on the facts by the...

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 Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

Receivability - At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor does the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. He therefore has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the Respondent before this Tribunal..

The Tribunal found the Applicant's reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General's discretion and dismissed the application. Reassignment of the Applicant: The Tribunal found that the relocation of the Applicant to Kuwait was prompted by administrative and humanitarian reasons based on space constraints in ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI in order to accommodate more humanitarian staff who were dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Secretary-General's exercise of discretion was not tainted by any improper motives. Payment of DSA, hardship and mobility...

The Tribunal found that the facts on which the sanction was based had not been established and the facts that were established did not legally amount to misconduct. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore a violation of his rights. Witness statements: The Tribunal concluded that the witness statements without averments of truthfulness could not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant solicited and obtained money from the five complainants in return for their recruitment as casual daily...

Abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent¡¯s restructuring strategy.

Interpretation ¨C As held in Sidell 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-489 and Abbasi 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-315, the purpose of interpretation is not to determine the disagreement of an applicant with a judgment who wishes to reargue an appeal. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of submitting a request to the Management Evaluation Unit before filing her Application with the Registry of the Tribunal.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant¡¯s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to ¡°violations of procedural fairness¡±. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...