Â鶹APP

UNDT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which UNDT thus granted leave for the Applicants¡¯ amended submissions. UNDT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. UNDT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. UNDT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the UNDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc¡¯ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his rights to free and fair elections and to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought ¡°an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 UNSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the election results are not safe, then the Applicant respectfully requests the Dispute Tribunal to order new...

The decision was taken on the grounds that the Applicant did not fulfill the educational requirements. The Applicant argued that the decision was made in retaliation of his activities as staff representative. The UNDT found that the decision was illegal since documentary evidence showed that the Administration applied the notion of ¡°public administration¡± randomly and that based on the Applicant¡¯s educational credentials, he ought to have been invited to participate in the examination in question. The UNDT found that the Applicant did not submit conclusive evidence that the decision was...

The decision was taken on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to submit the essay required by the vacancy announcement. The Applicant argued that the decision was taken in retaliation of his activities as staff representative. The Tribunal found that the decision not to convoke the Applicant to the examination was justified since he failed to submit the one-page essay in French, which was clearly an eliminatory requirement indicated in the vacancy announcement. The UNDT further found that the Applicant did not submit evidence in support of his claim that the decision was taken in...

The Respondent contended that the allegations of sexual harassment had been established after a proper investigation, that the disciplinary measures were appropriate and proportionate and that the Applicant had agreed to the imposition of these disciplinary measures. The Tribunal found that: (1) The OHRM had mischaracterized the Applicant¡¯s offence as ¡°sexual harassment¡± rather than ¡°harassment¡± and failed to follow its own procedures in ¡°the Guidelines on consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the Secretariat eligible to be considered¡±; (2) There was a...

The new system consists of a modernization of the system in place and does not change the staff members pre-existing obligation to accurately reflect their working hours. The Applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any persuasive arguments that would result in it to consider that the implementation of the Flex Time System infringed on either his contract of employment or his terms of appointment. The implementation of a practice, which is used to address specific needs of a department, does not become discriminatory solely due to the fact that other departments within the Organization do...

The Tribunal finds that the cancellation of the second selection exercise and its subsequent recommencement were, in the circumstances, appropriate and lawful in view of the strong representations by the Staff Council and the complaints raised regarding the selection exercise. However, there were excessive and unjustifiable delays in concluding the selection process. The Organization also consistently and without just cause failed to respond to the Applicant¡¯s reasonable requests for information and action. The delays in question as well as the failure to respond to the Applicant¡¯s enquiries...