Â鶹APP

UNAT found the UNDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, UNAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer¡¯s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

A re-trial would be unduly wasteful of time and resources. The Respondent was adequately represented especially as no oral evidence was tendered by the Applicant and the issue of cross- examining a witness did not arise. Full equality was accorded the parties in the circumstances. The onus lies on the Respondent to show that the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3 had been complied with in this case in order to prove that the Applicant was fully, fairly and properly considered. This onus has not been discharged.The Applicant¡¯s candidature was not considered at the 15-day mark as required by the...

The application for deferral of judgment pending the outcome of the appeal is refused. The Respondent is to appoint an official of at least the rank of USG to consider afresh the complaints of the Applicant in respect of the conduct of the SG. The official is to launch an investigation, as appropriate, under staff rule 10.1 if it is reasonable to suspect that the SA acted in such a way as to justify the imposition of a disciplinary measure.

Accountability referral: the USG¡¯s conduct in dealing with the complaint of the Applicant and in giving evidence to the Tribunal is referred to the SG for...

In this case the initial inquiry was inadequate and affected by bias. Outcome: Applicant awarded USD20,000 for breach of contractual right. Parties directed to make submissions as to whether ST/AI/371 is still operative or has been implicitly appealed by ST/SGB/2009/7. Further hearing to decide as to whether USG¡¯s conduct should be referred to the SG for possible action to enforce accountability pursuant to art 10.8 of the UNDT Statute.

Scope of the case. The Applicant¡¯s claims of harassment, sexual harassment and abuse of authority presented to the JAB were not independent claims in and of themselves, but merely constituted support for the Applicant¡¯s contention that her due process rights had been violated in the context of the non-renewal and non-extension. Considering the posture of the case presented to the JAB and on review by the Dispute Tribunal, the Tribunal is without authority to re-examine the investigation into the Applicant¡¯s sexual harassment charges. Exceptional case. With respect to the determination whether...

The filling of the Post with the ultimately-successful candidate cannot be characterized as a ¡°transfer¡±, be it lateral or not. The ultimately-successful candidate was therefore rather selected for the Post. Simply stated, the Post did not qualify as a lateral transfer. The Respndent employed the wrong procedure. The Applicants, although ranked behind the initially-successful candidate, were also ¡°suitable¡± candidates for the Post. The Tribunal finds that the selection exercise for the initially-selected candidate was improper. The Applicants having been deemed by the Tribunal as suitable...

Based on the JAB recommendation, the Secretary-General had previously awarded the Applicant the amount of USD23,400 (three months net base salary) in compensation for an error in the consideration of her academic qualifications during the selection process. The Tribunal found that, in addition to the above-mentioned error, a number of substantial procedural irregularities had tainted the selection process, including the fact that the Senior Review Group had failed to pre-approve the evaluation criteria as required by ST/AI/2002/4 and met without having developed and published its own...

Applicant¡¯s request for a swap of posts and for priority consideration: The Tribunal¡¯s Statute does not authorize it to issue such orders to the Administration. Applicant¡¯s request for an internal review of UNDSS: The Tribunal¡¯s mandate is to enforce the individual rights of applicants; it does not behove the Tribunal to oblige the Administration to remedy problems it may identify in the functioning of the Organization. Applicant¡¯s request for determination of individual responsibilities: Assuming the Applicant intended to rely on article 10.8 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, such article allows the...

The Tribunal found that the PCO¡¯s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define ¡°personal data¡±, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the UNDT and UNAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The UNDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant¡¯s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master¡¯s degree was unlawful. The UNDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant¡¯s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...