Â鶹APP

This case was first decided by the Dispute Tribunal by Leboeuf et al. UNDT/2010/206, rendered on 30 November 2010. The case, however, was remanded by the Â鶹APP Appeals Tribunal for ¡°further proceedings¡±. The UNDT found that the Applicants' claims against the lawfulness of the change introduced in December 2004, with effect from January 2005, are time-barred and not receivable under arts. 8.3 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider them and the application was receivable only with respect to the subsequent application of the policy on...

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 Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the Applicant lacked legal standing, and that the second part of the application, while receivable, was unfounded, since the Secretary-General, who has the duty to facilitate the holding of the elections to the UNSCP, had no power, whatsoever, to interfere in the actual conduct and results of the elections.

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The UNDT found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of staff rule 3.6 and ST/AI/2011/5 and could not claim dependent child status for her niece. The application was dismissed.

Selection processes and job openingsThe Tribunal appreciates that the selection process for a post starts with the creation of a job opening (sec. 3.1 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual) and ends when the Head of the Office/Department makes the selection decision (sec. 14.3.7 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual). A new job opening represents the beginning of a new selection process and cannot be created and or viewed as a continuation of a previous selection process that has been initiated by the publication of the first job opening for the same post. Composition of assessment panelThe Tribunal notes...

Announcement of NYGSCAC composition The Tribunal notes that ST/IC/2011/17 (Membership of the New York General Service Classification Appeals Committee) was issued by the ASG/OHRM on 7 June 2011, on the same day that the NYGSCAC issued its report.The Applicants¡¯ right to be informed of the composition of the NYGSCAC in a timely manner was not respected. Moreover, the NYGSCAC, as an appellate body, must have impartial members to ensure the fairness of the review, and the appellants must have the possibility to request the replacement of any member, including the chairperson, if any of them are...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...

The UNDT found that the Administration failed to fully honour the material provisions of staff rule 13.1 with respect to the Applicant. The UNDT found that the Organization committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the requirements of staff rule 13.1(d) and (e) and 9.6(e) The onus was on the Administration to carry out a matching exercise and find a suitable post for the Applicant, who was a permanent staff member, prior to opening the vacancy to others. The UNDT ordered payment of USD7,000 as compensation for emotional distress and two years¡¯ net base salary...