±¬ÁÏÍø

An agency relationship exists between an interview panel and a Programme Manager or Program Case Officer, such that the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel provided that it acts within its terms of reference. The Administration had no prerogative or power to cancel the vacancy announcement for the reasons relied upon.

An interview panel set up by a Programme Manager is the Programme Manager¡¯s agent and as the principal, the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel in so far as the panel does not exceed its mandate. When a head of department having a final say in the making of a selection decision influences the outcome of an interview process and report, the resultant selection process has been unduly interfered with and its integrity compromised. It does not lie within the discretionary authority or prerogative of the Administration to evaluate both 30-day and 60 day...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant¡¯s case was limited to the amount of adequate compensation for the failure to adequately and timeously consider his complaint and that his other claims, including with respect to the termination of his appointment, were not properly before it. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration was required¡ªbut failed¡ªto undertake an adequate and timeous initial inquiry into the applicant¡¯s allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant substantiated his claims of emotional distress and injury and must be compensated for it. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the applicant failed to show that...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found that was no breach of former staff rule 109.3(a) or 109.3(c) and the applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected. Outcome: Application dismissed.

The applicant was not separated because of the expiry of his fixed term contract, but because of the applicant¡¯s shortcomings and of the fact that his performances did not meet expectations; the applicant was rated for two consecutive years ¡°partially meets expectations¡±. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been afforded his due process rights and that his rights were not violated. In the present case, the decision not to renew the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not unlawful.

The purpose of compensation: Since the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in, had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the Tribunal first determines the likelihood that the Applicant would have been offered a hypothetical new contract and thereafter the characteristics of it. Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had...

Compensation: The elements of Applicant¡¯s compensation were: applicable salary, plus post adjustment, less staff assessment, less pension contribution made by Applicant, less amounts paid to Applicant on separation, less mitigation damages earned by Applicant, plus accrued vacation, plus personal distress award of USD4,000, plus e-PAS violation of USD6,000. Pension: Since, based on the facts from Beaudry ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/039, it was unlikely that the Applicant would have had her contract renewed until her retirement, the Applicant would not have qualified for any retirement benefits, including...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, citing the principle of res judicata, noted that the authority of a final judgment could not be so readily set aside. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the limited grounds and the gravest of reasons required for setting aside a final judgment by an appellate court are not met in this case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as the staff member also acknowledges, the current request fell outside of the permissible grounds for revision, correction, or interpretation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided that there were no grounds for it to review this matter in any way, dismissed the staff member's application and affirmed the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

It is not the function of the Tribunal to review the prior JAB report, but to consider whether the respondent acted properly and with due regard to the applicant¡¯s due process rights in deciding to appoint the applicant at the G-3 level. It is incumbent upon any party making serious allegations to produce supporting evidence. It was for the applicant, as a freely contracting person, to decide whether or not to accept the appointment and she did so on the basis of the clear oral and written conditions governing her appointment.Outcome: Application dismissed in its entirety.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with General Assembly resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member. The applicant¡¯s references to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are without merit in this respect.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Pursuant to articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the status of staff member is a necessary condition for access to the Tribunal. This is in line with the General Assembly¡¯s resolution 63/253 which intentionally limited the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. In this case, the application is not receivable ratione personae since the applicant never became a staff member.

The Tribunal does not sit as an expert review body on the classification of posts. The Tribunal has the power and a duty to consider whether the Committee acted unfairly or in anyway improperly or whether there was any failure, omission or deliberate failure by the ASG to give effect to the substance of the report and recommendations of the Committee. If there is no evidence of this, the Tribunal will not overturn a decision of the Committee. Where the applicant raises general complaints of unfairness and denial of due process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient detail...

In general, there is no right to renewal of appointment for staff members serving on a temporary appointment. In the case at hand, no improper motives neither countervailing circumstances existed which may have tainted the contested decision with illegality. The reasons for that decision - no budgeted or approved posts of Language Assistant, Interpreter or Translator at his level in ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI, abolislnnent of the post - are acceptable. Although the Organization was not obliged to find alternative employment for the applicant as a staff member holding a temporary appointment, a bona fide effort was...

The Administration¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment beyond September 30 2009 was not informed by improper motive, arbitrariness or other extraneous factors. The Applicant, in merely settling into his reassignment to clerical duties in JRAU, not only deluded himself as to the security of his employment with the ICTR but was utterly unreasonable and careless regarding his own career prospects and must bear the blame for the fall-outs of his reassignment. The ICTR Administration made sufficient effort in the spirit of the Performance Appraisal System to improve the...

The case cannot proceed without the active involvement of the applicant as the dominus litis. Accordingly, in the interests of ensuring that only current proceedings are maintained before the Tribunal, the application stands to be dismissed.