±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant was not qualified to address ±¬ÁÏÍøDT because, at the time of the disputed facts, she was neither a serving nor former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly disclaimed jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the application.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS to WHO and back to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, and her separation from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.

Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion withdrawing his application, confirming that he was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate or the right to appeal.

Pleadings - A defence to a claim must say which of the allegations in the particulars of claim are admitted, which are denied and which allegations the defendant is unable to admit or deny, but requires the claimant to prove. Every allegation made in a claim should be dealt with in the defence. Where an allegation is denied, this normally implies that the defendant intends to put up a positive case to the contrary. Where the defendant denies an allegation, he must state his reasons for doing so; and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he...

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope...

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his right to participate as a candidate for leadership in the ±¬ÁÏÍøSU through a free and fair election process and his right to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought ¡°an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 ±¬ÁÏÍøSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the election results are not...

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his rights to free and fair elections and to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought ¡°an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 ±¬ÁÏÍøSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the election results are not safe, then the Applicant respectfully requests the Dispute Tribunal to order new...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

The Tribunal found that the decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was a reasonable exercise of discretion and the Administration¡¯s reasons for the decision were acceptable.

Selection processes: An appointing officer may decline to make an appointment where a selection process is marred by irregularities. It is within the competence of a program manager to set up a new interview panel where an initial interview panel has failed to properly discharge its mandate. While a candidate to a post has no right to be selected, he or she has every right to be fully and fairly considered for the post.Recommendation for a post is not the same thing as selection; while there is discretion in selection, there is no discretion in recommendation. Central Review Bodies: The...

Waiver of management evaluation deadline: The Tribunal held that the Respondent effectively waived the deadline for management evaluation and gave the Applicant the discretionary authority to decide when to litigate her matter by engaging her on the merits of her claims, even though her request for management evaluation was approximately 6 weeks late, and by suspending her request for management evaluation ¡°until further notice¡± with an undertaking that she could request for resumption of the formal process ¡°at any stage in the future¡±, should the issue not be resolved to her satisfaction.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was unable to prove that the selection process was biased against him and that the consideration of his candidacy was marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or resulted in a failure to give him proper consideration. The application was dismissed.

Improper motives: Whilst it is permissible for the drafters of a job opening to deviate from previously established evaluation criteria where circumstances demand it, the deviation must not be actuated by bad faith or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the deviation from the established criteria in this case with respect to the subject Job Opening No. 21952 was informed by the desire of the incumbent of the post with the active support of the Hiring Manager to ensure that the recruitment process in respect of the Job Opening was aborted and she was retained in service beyond the...

MEU¡¯s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT refused the Respondent¡¯s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

Following inter partes discussions pursuant to case management directions by the Tribunal, 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. 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 Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and that the selected candidate met the required work experience for the post. Computation of part-time experience: The conversion of part-time work experience to relevant work experience is within the discretion of the administration as long as the method used is not arbitrary or irregular. Written tests: Though there are no established rules and or guidelines for the rating system and the distribution of points for a written test exercise, a hiring manager has discretion in developing a standard to be used to govern the awarding of...