±¬ÁÏÍø

The IAMA requires the receiving organization to recognize a staff member¡¯s service in the releasing organization for ¡°credit¡± purposes. However, it does not require it to consider that the performance of the contract in the releasing organization was undertaken in a setting other than in its original one. It cannot be considered that the Applicant¡¯s contract was, prior to joining the United Nations, either under the control of the Secretary-General of the United Nations or that the Applicant had to previously answer to the United Nations staff rules. Therefore, the Applicant does not meet the...

The application is not receivable as it was not submitted to the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) within the sixty calendar days time limit in staff rule 11.2(c). The Tribunal notes that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was limited to requesting the payment of certain benefits as a result of the non-renewal of her contract and did not, as per the submission to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, contest the actual non-renewal of her contract.The Applicant did not contest the findings of the OAI report before the MEU prior to submitting them to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. These claims are therefore not properly before...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of the amicable resolution of the matter.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had been grossly negligent in that a duty-conscious and vigilant Logistics Assistant in the Applicant¡¯s position ought to have reasonably foreseen that the documents in possession of Mr Weah were sufficient to enable him to misappropriate the containers. The sanction was fair and proportionate. The Application therefore failed. Negligence test: Three elements which must be established to prove gross negligence; namely, (1) a failure in the form of an act or omission to exercise the requisite standard of care; (2) the standard of care required is that which a...

Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine on its own motion the issue of receivability even if the parties did not raise it.

The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent¡¯s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to the fact that at least 78 candidates had obtained a higher score during the evaluation process and no procedural irregularity with an impact on her status as well as a probability for promotion...

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of USD10,000 for the anxiety and distress she suffered as a result of the Respondent¡¯s failure to give full effect to sec. 15.3 in ST/AI/2002/3 which requires ¡°maximum dispatch¡± in the completion of the rebuttal process.

The Tribunal held that the Administration did not have sufficient evidence of Mr. Koutang¡¯s level of engagement in outside activities to justify a finding that he had engaged in an outside occupation or employment. Thus, there were no reasonable grounds to sustain a finding of conflict of interest. While Mr. Koutang had installed a private router in his office there was no breach of security and no willful misconduct. Mr. Koutang had no ulterior motive or malicious intent in installing the router. It was at most an error of judgment with no proven adverse effects on the Country Office. The...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Secretary-General has discretion in the appointment of staff, he has no discretion to impose unwritten regulations and rules that are prejudicial to staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion ¡°influenced¡± the Applicant¡¯s decision to resign. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, three months after the Applicant¡¯s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, when the Appellant contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant¡¯s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly established that the silence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/179. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...