Â鶹APP

The failure to consider the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS reports and to address them especially in the context of the disparity between its ratings and those of the Applicant¡¯s reporting officers on the same competencies and within the same organization was a serious flaw in the selection process. UNDT was satisfied that the panel met its requirement of asking probing questions, even if the report reflected it as ¡°prompting¡± rather than ¡°probing.¡± The absence of an ex-officio member on the assessment/interview panel by itself could not vitiate the selection exercise. The Applicant¡¯s candidacy for the...

Pursuant to staff rule 3.17(ii), the Applicant was required to make a written claim to receive retroactive SPA ¡°within one year following the date on which [she] would have been entitled to the initial payment¡±. This request should have been made within one year of 1 December 2009, that is, by or before 1 December 2010. However, it was only on 5 September 2011 that the Applicant wrote an interoffice memorandum requesting an extension of her SPA at the P-2 level from 1 December 2009 to the then-present time to account for the additional functions that she had been performing. The Applicant...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materia.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s intentional actions amounted to misconduct. Although the Applicant did not receive any money from the health insurance company, the mere fact that he attempted to defraud the company by knowingly submitting false information constituted a violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and amounted to misconduct. Whereas the Applicant contended that his termination was disproportionate particularly in view of his 17 years of service to the Organisation and his continuous satisfactory performance, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to...

Disciplinary process and agreed separation: While the fact that an investigation for misconduct was ongoing was not in itself a basis for excluding the Applicant from consideration for agreed separation outright, as this was not one of the non-eligibility factors set forth in the relevant rules, the Administration was entitled to take into account the outcome of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process when carrying out its consideration to award a discretionary benefit on to a staff member.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal referred the case to the UNDP Administrator due to...

Due process rights: Disciplinary proceedings are of an administrative and not of a criminal nature, hence criminal law procedures do not apply. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights are contained in the relevant administrative issuances, under which rights such as the right to counsel and to be informed about the charges against him do only apply as of the moment the disciplinary procedure is initiated (charge letter), but not at the stage of the preliminary investigation. The right to cross examine witnesses does not apply at any stage of the administrative procedure, but only once the case is...

The application was receivable as it was filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in article 12.3 of the UNDT Statute and article 30 of the UNDT RoP.; The payment of salaries to the Applicant should have been calculated as of the time of separation (30 November 2009) with accrued interest.; UNDT ordered that the Secretary-General add a pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid, calculated at the US Prime Rate applicable on 30 November 2009 (date of separation) to 9 December 2016 (date of payment). All other pleas were refused.

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant¡¯s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. UNAT held that UNDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC¡¯s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the Â鶹APP Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) by mistake. UNAT held that UNDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...