±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/168, by which the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

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...

Consultations: ¡°Consultation with the appropriate staff representative bodies¡± does not mean that for an administrative instruction to enter into force, it must necessarily meet the agreement of the staff representatives.Acquired right: An acquired right is breached only when an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental or essential terms of employment.Irreparable damage: Mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable damage. Harm to professional reputation and career prospects, or harm to health, or sudden loss of...

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.

The Applicant also contested the adequacy of compensation paid to her for having been placed in a hostile work environment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration was obliged, at the expiration of the three years, to make a decision to either separate the Applicant or to grant her a permanent appointment. The Administration¡¯s reliance on former staff rule 112.2(b) (on exceptions to staff rules) to further extend her probationary contract was improper as the procedural requirements of that staff rule were not met as the Applicant did not agree to the extension. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that 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...

From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA before the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...

A judgment in which it is decided that the summary dismissal of the Applicant was wrongful calls for a rescission of the said sanction. The Applicant had a reasonable expectation that he would remain in service beyond the date of his wrongful summary dismissal. The Tribunal refuses the request that the Applicant ought to be compensated on a P5 scale and agrees with the Respondent¡¯s argument that such an award would be merely speculative. A summary dismissal is the most severe sanction that the Respondent may impose on a staff member for serious misconduct. Judicial notice is taken of the fact...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

On 19 October 2011, the Tribunal issued Order No. 129 (NBI/2011) suspending the implementation of the contested decision until 10 November 2011 allowing the Tribunal to allow the filing of the Respondent¡¯s Reply, the hearing held on 3 November 2011 and the determination of the matter. The Applicant was communicated the response from MEU on 27 October 2011 as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s response. The Applicant filed his case on the merits, registered in the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s records as ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2011/070 and simultaneously filed under article 14 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. The contested decision had not yet been implemented, as the head of the department had simply communicated by phone his selection to the successful candidate and the latter had merely sent an email expressing his ¡°great interest¡± in the job. The Tribunal found that this did not amount to an official offer by the Administration followed by an unconditional acceptance by the candidate. The Tribunal considered that the impending appointment of the successful candidate conferred urgency to the matter; that the contested decision, if...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

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...

Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found in Villamoran ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/126, that the mandatory 31-day break in service for staff between their fixed-term and temporary appointments, if not supported by law, is prima facie unlawful. The Respondent was ordered to provide evidence to support the decision but failed to do so. The evidence submitted neglected to show the publication date or the precise method of publication of the revised administrative instruction. The Administration has an obligation to properly announce amendments to Staff rules and regulations for decisions to be proper and made...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant¡¯s filing of his application was prompt and...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant¡¯s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children¡¯s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable ratione termporis, considering that, for the purpose of former staff rule 111.2(a), the Applicant was duly notified of his non-selection by the email of 5 June 2009, and that subsequent communications were merely confirmative. Notification of non-selection decision: Former staff rule 111.2(a) did not require that a decision must be communicated in any specific manner, except that it must be in writing. Confirmative decisions: A decision which merely confirms a previous one may not be appealed and it does not reopen the time limit for formal...

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.

The Tribunal finds no flaws in the procedure leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. It further finds, based on its assessment of the intern¡¯s credibility and on the evidence available, that the facts have been established. It also concludes that they qualify as misconduct, even though the Respondent erroneously relied on ST/SGB/2008/5; the latter was indeed issued on 11 February 2008 and was therefore not applicable at the time of the misconduct. Finally, the Tribunal, recalling the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion in disciplinary matters and considering the circumstances of the case, finds...