������ҹ������

The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant’s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...

The application was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. The Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 2,000 for abuse of process. On receivability: The Tribunal found that the PDF version of the application attached to the email of 15 September 2012, also copied to OHRM and EO/OCHA, met the requirements of art. 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal. It was moreover identical to the application filed through the e-filing portal on 15 October 2012. The Respondent’s contention that the...

The UNDT found that the UNON Administration had, prior to mid-2012 when the error was discovered, been miscalculating the amount of overtime and compensatory time off due to Security Officers and Drivers at UNON. The Security Officers, as a result had received payments in excess of what was due to them. Administrative errors - As held in Boutruche, the Administration has a right and even an obligation to put an end to illegal situations as soon as it becomes aware of them, while preserving any rights acquired by staff members in good faith. Staff-management consultations - No staff-management...

Receivability ratione personae – Applying UNAT’s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the United Nations and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.

The disciplinary sanction was based on the finding that he had made a material misrepresentation on several personal history forms when applying for jobs. The UNDT found that it has been established that on three occasions—sometime in or around October 2011, on 25 March 2005 and on 21 February 2007—the Applicant’s personal history forms incorrectly indicated he did not have “relatives employed by a public international organization”, whereas his brother was in fact employed by the United Nations until 8 December 2008. The UNDT found, however, that the established facts did not amount to...

UNDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. UNDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant’s contract should not be renewed. UNDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member’s contract. UNDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party’s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...

On receivability: Applying the test of Gabaldon, even though all the conditions of staff rule 4.8 had not been fulfilled, the Applicant had locus standi and was legitimately entitled to similar rights as those of staff members and that the Organization must be regarded as having extended to her the protection of its administration of justice system. She held a valid contract, the scope of which must be determined when other issues are considered. The reach and application of Gabaldon is indeed limited and does not entitle the Applicant to take full benefit of the Staff Regulations regarding...

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant’s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the UNDT found not...

The Applicant was invited to and successfully passed the assessment process, during which the assessment panel evaluated his technical skills and competencies through a written test and a competency-based interview, pursuant to sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. As a consequence, the Applicant was placed on the list of recommended candidates by the hiring manager for review by the CRC, pursuant to secs. 7.6 and 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. Both parties agree that this evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedures.; In reviewing the selection process, the CRC...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 21 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.