±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing had not affected its decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found...

The Tribunal ordered the parties to produce consolidated lists of agreed and disputed facts to enable it understand the factual issues at stake.

The Tribunal also ordered the parties to indicate what additional documentaton they requested to be disclosed, and the identities of any witnesses they wished to call, specifying what disputed facts the witnesses would testify about.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Kankwenda, a late participant in the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, married another individual, Ms. M.T., in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1971. This fact, which Ms. Isasi herself did not contest, was supported by a marriage certificate and was consistent with the information regarding the dates of birth of Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s children and the identities of their mothers. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that Ms. Isasi admitted that the two marriage certificates she submitted after Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s death, purportedly showing their marriage on 17 January 1971, were falsified, undermining her...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since Mr. Nigam based his interlocutory appeal on alleged errors of fact and law by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judge President, with no allegation of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acting extra-jurisdictionally or similarly in excess of its jurisdiction, he must wait to exercise his right of appeal until a final decision has been made.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that an earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment contained neither any indication of bias by Judge Belle against Mr. Nigam, nor any criticism beyond what a reasonably informed observer might expect from a partly erroneous judgment and its subsequent appellate review.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General¡¯s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found, however, that when the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

Receivability

The Tribunal found that to the extent the Applicant challenged the legal framework of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR, and requested the removal of a part of para. 34 of the Recruitment and Assignments Policy, her application was not receivable ratione materiae. The application was only receivable concerning the decision not to select the Applicant for the G-7 position of Senior Resource Management Associate, Addressing SEA and SH.

Merits

Whether the applicable procedures were properly followed

First, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant¡¯s argument concerning the alleged forgery of the document...

The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant¡¯s intent was to file an application...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member¡¯s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no merit in the staff member¡¯s argument that the lack of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Safi failed to discharge his burden in identifying in what respect and for what reasons the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in its Judgment. Mr. Safi merely reiterated the same arguments that he had presented in his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT stated that it is not its role to reexamine the staff member¡¯s case anew, and accordingly, his appeal must fail. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT drew reasonable inferences from its extensive fact-finding exercise and delivered a well-reasoned judgment.

The appeal was dismissed, and Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2023/011 was...

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-335).

The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.

As indicated by the Respondent in his reply, the selected candidate signed the letter of appointment and assumed her functions on 19 June 2024. She further completed the onboarding formalities on 24 June 2024. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that it can no longer entertain the instant application, which was filed on 28 June 2024, thus after the contested decision has been implemented. Granting an injunction would require reversing the onboarding of the selected candidate, which it clearly cannot do.

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two ¡°landmark¡± performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

Since the management evaluation in this case has been completed, one of the cumulative and mandatory conditions specified in art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute is not fulfilled. The Tribunal will therefore not examine if the remaining statutory requirements have been met, as the matter now lies moot.

An application for suspension of action can only be entertained under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal when the challenged contested decision is the subject of an ongoing management evaluation (see Onana 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-008, para. 19; Igbinedion 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-159, para. 20). In the present case, the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was no longer pending. The evidence showed that the Deputy High Commissioner completed the management evaluation on 27 June 2024, and that the Applicant received the outcome of his management evaluation request the same day. Consequently, as the management...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.