Â鶹APP

The Applicant contended, inter alia, that WFP breached her due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings and she did not breach any of the applicable rules. The evidence before the Tribunal sustained the Applicant¡¯s contention that WFP¡¯s investigators did not respect her due process rights. The ground of appeal related to the irregularity of the disciplinary proceeding is accepted and the Tribunal does not need to analyse the rest of the Applicant¡¯s contentions. The rescission of the contested decision is, per se, a fair and sufficient remedy for the moral prejudice caused to the...

The Applicant requests the Tribunal to find that his due process rights were breached, that a copy of the report from the Investigation Panel be produced to him. There is no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not follow the applicable procedures or that his due process rights were not respected. It is within the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion as to whether or not initiate action against a staff member. The case is dismissed.

The parties agreed that the facts were not contested and that the issue for the Tribunal¡¯s consideration was whether the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities was proportionate to the Applicant¡¯s conduct. Taking the mitigation circumstances into consideration, the UNDT found that the sanction was not proportionate to the facts and substituted it for the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnities. The Tribunal agrees with the facts that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was improper and that she...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

There is no contestable administrative decision over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction, rather the Applicant is seeking to have the Tribunal substitute its view for that of the Arbitration Committee with regard to an internal UNSU matter. The application is not receivable rationae materiae. As indicated in Kisambira Order No. 36 (NY/2011), the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters involving the internal affairs of a staff association. The application is not receivable.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant. The Applicant's request for redaction was granted in part and his name to be redacted from the judgment.

The Applicant alleged that his due process rights were breached and that the sanction was not proportional. Upon review, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent correctly established the facts but did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances. The sanction applied is therefore too harsh and is modified by the Tribunal. The contested decision is rescinded and the Applicant is to be reinstated. The disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities applied to him is replaced with the sanctions of a written...

The Tribunal concluded that the sanction was taken in accordance with the applicable regulations and rules that govern disciplinary matters and that it was in line with sanctions applied in other matters of similar nature. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected throughout the preliminary investigation and the ensuing disciplinary process. The contested decision was both factually and legally reasoned and did not reflect any bias, improper motivates, flawed procedural irregularity or errors of law. The Applicant¡¯s disciplinary liability was correctly determined and the disciplinary...

The withdrawal request was filed more than two years after the initial application and prior to it the Applicant never requested a joinder of the present case and Case No. UNDT/NY/2012/070. The Applicant did not present sufficient legal grounds to grant his request for joinder. Although the Tribunal no longer needs to make a determination on the merits, the present decision represents a final disposal of the matter and the Tribunal will consider it withdrawn in finality, including on the merits. The application is dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate. There are no exceptional...

Any decision issued by the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims( ABCC) will be a new administrative decision which will supersede the one contested in the present case and which will be subject to this Tribunal¡¯s authority upon the filing of an application by either of the concerned parties.

The Applicant¡¯s letter of appointment stated that his appointment was subject to termination in the interest of the Organization, as determined by the Secretary-General. By signing his letter of appointment, the Applicant agreed that his appointment could be terminated, in addition to the reasons stated in the staff regulations and rules, this additional discretionary clause. The Tribunal considers that the determination of the interest of the Organization is the Secretary¡¯s General exclusive attribute and the circumstances under which the Secretary-General is to determine ¡°the interest of the...

The Applicant submitted that seeing that the Secretary-General of the Â鶹APP does not have any authority over staff rules at the UNJSPF, the Pension Fund is not precluded from employing a candidate that was rejected by OHRM. The UNDT found that the UNJSPF and OHRM correctly applied the legal provisions by considering that OHRM was responsible for administering the selection process for a post located in the UNJSPF and that the Applicant was not eligible for the post due to the fact that he held a post at a G-4 grade whereas the post to which he had applied was at the G-7 grade, three...

The Applicant¡¯s separations from service were the result of the expiration of his fixed-term appointments in the natural course of business. There were no legal provisions or administrative decision requiring that the Applicant take any breaks in service between his FTAs. The time period between his separation from service on one FTA and his re-employment on another FTA, which was not followed by any type of reinstatement, results in the Applicant¡¯s continuity of service being broken. Therefore, one of the cumulative conditions of ST/SGB/2009/10, to have five years of continuous service before...

The Applicant is ¡°not contest[ing] the proportionality of the sanction(s) imposed¡±. Consequently, the Tribunal need only consider if not reporting another staff member¡¯s violation ST/SGB/2004/15 was correctly considered by the Respondent as being the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, whether his due process rights were respected and whether all the mitigating circumstances were taken into account. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant requested, and was denied, either access to counsel or further opportunities to defend himself during the investigation conducted by OIOS. With...

The Applicant is ¡°not contest[ing] the proportionality of the sanction(s) imposed¡±. Consequently, the Tribunal need only consider if not reporting another staff member¡¯s violation ST/SGB/2004/15 was correctly considered by the Respondent as being the Applicant¡¯s misconduct, whether his due process rights were respected and whether all the mitigating circumstances were taken into account. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant requested, and was denied, either access to counsel or further opportunities to defend himself during the investigation conducted by OIOS. With...

The fact that a staff member is no longer employed by the Organization does not mean that the Organization is not required to notify him or her of the completion of an administrative proceeding related to his or her current or past employment. With respect to the completion of an investigation into allegation filed against him or her, a former staff member benefits from the same rights as a current staff member, including that of being informed of any decision taken by HR related to an investigation of which he was the subject and, as stated in Applicant UNDT/2010/069/Corr.2, ¡°the right to...

The UNDT found that the decision that the Applicant was not eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment was lawful.

The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the ¡°serious weaknesses in his performance¡± on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...

The Applicant considers that the disclosure requirements did not apply to him. The Respondent failed to establish that the Applicant was required to file a financial disclosure statement for 2006. The Tribunal rescinds the Applicant¡¯s written reprimand. Any record of it is to be removed from the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File.