±¬ÁÏÍø

Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...

Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...

The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific categories of decisions: those taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies and...

The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights had been respected, that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established and amounted to misconduct, and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the offence, and rejected the application. Misconduct: Under the relevant rules, misrepresentation, forgery or false certification in connection with an official claim or benefit¡ªwhich can include failure to disclose a fact material to that claim or benefit¡ªcan be ¡°wilful, reckless or grossly negligent¡±. Gross negligence is defined as ¡°an extreme or aggravated...

Compensation for moral injury - A staff member whose fundamental or other rights are infringed upon by the agents of the Respondent is entitled to have an effective remedy granted by this Tribunal. The Administration¡¯s duty to respect fundamental human rights - What happened to the Applicant in the process of her forced eviction by the agents of ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS in the morning of 11 November 2011 constituted not only human rights violations but also criminal and civil wrongs. The forceful and unlawful eviction additionally violated Article17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT summary judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no provision in the Staff Regulations or Rules stating that the Secretary-General¡¯s discretionary authority to issue a written reprimand as a non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2(b) (i) was predicated upon and limited to the existence of an ongoing employment contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that to hold otherwise would render baseless those standards of conduct that survive active service. In addition, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, from a practical perspective, it would stymie the Secretary-General¡¯s ability and discretionary authority to properly manage investigations and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the management evaluation decision was issued. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the respective management evaluation was issued. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and fact by awarding a remedy to Mr Nwuke. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the violation of Mr Nwuke¡¯s due process rights did not, in and of itself, entitle him to an award of damages and that there was no evidence of any pecuniary loss or harm suffered by Mr Nwuke as a result of said violation. Moreover, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that not every violation of a staff member¡¯s right will necessarily lead to an award of compensation and there are no legal grounds that can justify such an award when no actual prejudice is found. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, which was limited to a challenge of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s method of calculating the compensation awarded to Mr Nyasulu as an alternative to the rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr Nyasulu presumably had no objection to the compensation being re-calculated, as he did not rebut the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it had no option but to remand the case as, in order to rule on the Secretary-General¡¯s request, it would first need to be satisfied that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission was not correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that could not be done because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT gave...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, specifically whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically whether General Assembly resolutions 63/250 and 65/247 apply to staff in the General Service category, and whether Staff Rules 4.14(b) and 4.16(b) apply to staff at the General Service level. With respect to the first issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that Paragraph 23 of section II of General Assembly resolution 63/250 and Paragraph 50 of section VI of General Assembly resolution 65/247 include two categories of staff members in the United Nations Secretariat who have the right to be granted a continuing appointment...