±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal awarded: (a) two years¡¯ net base salary at the P-5 level and step which she had at the date of the non-extension of her appointment on 31 March 2010, plus the applicable post adjustment and the value of any quantifiable monetary entitlements and benefits to which she would have been entitled, plus the amount corresponding to the contributions that the Organization would have made to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund and to a sum which represents the difference between what she would have paid in medical insurance at the United Nations and the medical insurance she...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT identified several deviations in the performance evaluation procedures, but found that some of them resulted from the Applicant¡¯s actions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that no harm warranting compensation was caused to the Applicant, including to her career, by the identified deviations in the performance evaluation process as the Applicant separated from service for medical reasons. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the decision to reassign the Applicant within the same department was lawful. The application was rejected.

Abolished posts: The onus is on the Respondent to show that the Organization acted correctly towards the Applicant as a permanent appointee on an abolished post and to demonstrate what good faith steps it took, in accordance with its legal and policy obligations, to assist her with finding alternative employment.Manifest abuse of process: A withdrawal of an admission of liability upon which the parties have relied may result in a finding of manifest abuse of process warranting award of costs.Outcome: Relied ordered: (i) 9 months¡¯ net base salary (breach of rights and loss of chance of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues¡ª(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant¡¯s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization¡¯s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

Outcome: The Applicant¡¯s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant¡¯s file and pay the Applicant six months¡¯ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

Performance evaluation: The Respondent followed the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Personnel Policy guidelines for the rebuttal process by having a review of the Applicant¡¯s appraisal by the Management Review Group (MRG) which conducted at least two reviews. However, since the second review was completed with insufficient time for the Applicant to submit a written statement of agreement to the Head of Office, wait for a response and then submit a written rebuttal, if necessary, the Respondent breached ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA policy requirements and the right to due process. The Applicant had a mandated right as a dissatisfied staff...

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration¡¯s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant¡¯s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant¡¯s supervisors¡¯ assessment...

An offer of employment and its acceptance amount to an agreement entailing rights for the Applicant: The contract by which an individual acquires staff member status can only be concluded validly on the date at which an official of the Organization signs the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment. However, as the Appeals Tribunal held, ¡°this does not mean that an offer of employment never produces any legal effects. Unconditional acceptance by a candidate of the conditions of the offer of an appointment before the issuance of a letter of employment can form a valid contract, provided the...

There may be cases that take longer to be heard by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that this may provide a reason justifying compensation beyond the two-year limit. This was such a case. Compensation in lieu of rescission was set at two years and 2 months¡¯ net-base salary. The Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation was excessive. It equated to over 13 years of net-base salary plus payment of a number of entitlements. Apart from being well outside the scope of compensation that might properly be ordered by the Tribunal, the Applicant¡¯s claim was predicated on the mistaken belief that but for the unlawful dismissal he...

Receivability: The Applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of ±¬ÁÏÍøDP, in accordance with the practice of ±¬ÁÏÍøDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...

Method of interpretation: The interpretation of a statutory document proceeds first by establishing the plain meaning of the words in the context of the document as a whole. Only if the wording is ambiguous should the Tribunal have recourse to other documents or external sources to aid in the interpretation.Respondent¡¯s discretion in providing benefits: As a matter of principle, the Administration has no discretion in the granting of allowances but is bound to strictly apply the applicable rules.Outcome: Application rejected on the merits

Management evaluation: Claims against decisions that have not been the subject of a request for management evaluation are not receivable before the Tribunal. An applicant may not seek any rulings or relief in relation to these decisions. The events surrounding them may be part of the factual matrix of the application but they are peripheral at best. Project document: There is no mandatory requirement in the rules or any Administrative Instructions for a project document to be finalised prior to the responsible staff member taking up the project post. Authority for lateral transfers under ST/AI...

To give full effect to the requirements of staff rule 110(4) which embodies the elements of fair process in disciplinary investigations, the preliminary investigation undertaken pursuant to the AI and any related IOM/ FOMs should be treated as strictly preliminary. The disciplinary part of the process, including the interview of the alleged offender should only occur once all the preliminary evidence has been made available to the staff member and the specific allegations against him or her have been finalised. If there is to be an interview it should properly be the last step in the...

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

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/±¬ÁÏÍøON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

The early termination of his contract was not based on a proper or lawful evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance. In the absence of a comprehensive and fair performance evaluation done at the time, the reasons given by the Respondent cannot be regarded as cogent or reliable because the Applicant did not have an opportunity to refute, answer or rebut them. They therefore represent just one side of the story and, however strongly felt by the Respondent, are not a reliable basis for a lawful termination of the contract before its expiry date. This is not a question of improper motivation...

Noting the agreement between the Parties, and the Applicant¡¯s notice of withdrawal, the Tribunal ordered that the matter be dismissed.