±¬ÁÏÍø

Outcome: Application dismissed, but the applicant awarded USD500 in nominal compensation for not being informed in time.

In declaring the Applicant¡¯s appeal time-barred on the issue of the reclassification of her post, the Secretary-General wrongfully considered that the Administration¡¯s failure to take action on the Applicant¡¯s appeal of a classification decision was an implicit decision of refusal that she should have contested within the time limits set forth in former staff rule 111.2 (a). ST/AI/1998/9 sets out special procedures for contesting a post classification or reclassification. In particular, it provides for the referral of the appeal to a Classification Appeals Committee. When an appeal is referred...

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant¡¯s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

Outcome: The application was dismissed.

Having considered the parties¡¯ submissions on the matter of the appropriate relief for the Applicant, the Tribunal: (i) Orders rescission of the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant; (ii) Orders the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant; (iii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant¡¯s lost earnings from the date of his summary dismissal to the date of his reinstatement with interest at 8% less US$ 2,600 per month for the said period; (iv) Orders that the Applicant be served a written reprimand to be filed in his Official Status File for the reasons cited at paragraph 8.1 (iii)...

The applicant was entitled to be immediately informed or placed in the same position as he would have been had he been immediately informed. The failure to give timely notice, given the history of the case, gave rise to the legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed. Outcome: Held that the applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal of his contract and that decision not to renew was based on proper grounds and was not affected by irrelevant considerations. Held also that the applicant was entitled to be informed of the decision that he was regarded by the Organization as...

The more serious an allegation against a staff member and attendant sanction, the higher the degree of proof required. Establishing criminal liability in investigations and judicial proceedings even in the context of a civil matter such as this must necessarily require that a standard higher than the ordinary one of a balance of probabilities must be attained. The OIOS Investigations Manual requires that investigators approach matters with an ¡°open mind¡± and emphasises that their task is to ¡°establish facts¡± and draw ¡°reasonable conclusions¡± from those facts. It is a ¡°dispassionate...

Assignment grant: Rule 107.20 clearly envisages a situation in which a newly recruited staff member from an area ¡°within commuting distance of the duty station¡± would be entitled to an assignment grant where he had been ¡°settled¡± in the duty station perhaps by a former employer who due to the new recruitment would no longer take responsibility for such things as his accommodation. He would be given the assignment grant to ¡°resettle¡± himself, as it were. By the same token, a newly recruited staff member who had previously worked for the Organisation for a period of time as a consultant and most...

In view of the evidence available and the Applicant¡¯s refusal to disclose evidence that could exonerate her and that she alone could have produced, the Tribunal considered that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Section 20 of the Convention of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations provides that privileges such as VAT exemption are granted to staff members in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. Section 21 further provides that the United Nations shall cooperate at all times...

Pursuant to section 3 of ST/AI/371, in determining if the preliminary investigation appears to indicate that the report of misconduct is well founded, the head of office or responsible officer is vested with a wide discretion. That discretion is to be exercised judiciously in the light of what the investigation has revealed. The discretion cannot and should not be used capriciously. It is incumbent on the person vested with that discretion to scrutinise the evidence carefully before deciding whether any act of misconduct as defined has been committed. A judicious exercise ofthe discretion...

The charge relating to the unauthorized use of the ±¬ÁÏÍøON ID card to gain access to the ±¬ÁÏÍø premises in Nairobi was properly brought. However, before a conclusion was reached, the decision maker was required not simply to ask whether, as a question of fact, tax and duty free purchases were made by the staff member but also whether by doing so the staff member had the mens rea to abuse ±¬ÁÏÍø privileges and immunities or whether he genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds that he was entitled to have access to the ±¬ÁÏÍø Commissary. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal found that on the balance of...

Outcome: The applicant succeeds. Compensation ordered for distress and loss of career development and associated benefits.

The application is prima facie not receivable before the ±¬ÁÏÍø Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

The Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence tendered before it in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absences. The Tribunal is not convinced that the reasons proffered by the Applicant to explain his unauthorized absences were beyond his control. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant was given ample opportunity to address this performance shortcoming. The Tribunal is satisfied, in consideration of the requirements of section 8.3 of ST/AI/2002/3, that the ICTR Administration had taken steps to rectify the situation in respect of the Applicant¡¯s chronic absenteeism.

The Applicant made an application for strike out, summary judgment and transfer of the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT New York or Geneva on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest for various reasons. The Tribunal issued Order No. 28 refusing the requests for strike out, summary judgment and transfer and, in accordance with Article 19 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure (ROP), gave case management directives, which the Applicant was supposed to comply with by 4 March 2010 but he did not do so. Subsequent to the Tribunal issuing an Order to show cause, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that its...

Once appeal is withdrawn there is no longer any matter for adjudication before the Tribunal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order as not receivable, finding that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for consideration on the merits.

In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was within ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.