Â鶹APP

Taking into consideration the Respondent¡¯s response that the internal processes had not yet reached finality, the Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter until such time as all applicable and relevant procedures had been concluded. Consequently, the application was deemed premature and dismissed as irreceivable.

The fact-finding panel established that the allegations were well founded and the conduct in question amounted to possible misconduct. In the circumstances, the mandatory language of section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 required a referral to the ASG/OHRM for disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures. Failure to make such a referral on the part of the Head of Mission was an error of procedure which denied the Applicant his contractual right to be afforded the benefit and protection against prohibited conduct in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. The Administration...

Â鶹APP core competency of Communication - Due to sheer incompetence and inefficiency, the Respondent¡¯s agents did not exhibit professionalism when they failed in their duty to give proper, timely and accurate information regarding his employment and health status to the Applicant. They failed also to exhibit the core competency of communication which is required of every staff member. Requirement to file a management evaluation request - The new claims the Applicant sought to be allowed to introduce as part of this case which was instituted in 2012 are separate and distinct issues...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to submit a management evaluation request in a timely manner.

The Tribunal found that the non-extension of the Applicant¡¯s appointment in UNAMI was not a termination but her mission assignment simply came to an end after the maximum two years. The Applicant¡¯s challenge of the administrative decision to restrict her mission assignment to the maximum of two years is not receivable as she failed to request for management evaluation. Receivability - Even if by any stretch of reasoning it was open to the Applicant to challenge the conditions of her mission assignment which she had accepted on 28 January 2013, time began to run for her to challenge that...

UNDT held that the conduct of the Acting Chief of Mission Support and the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisor constituted an abuse of authority in their treatment of the Applicant. Given the gross injustice meted out to the Applicant by her managers, UNDT awarded her compensation representing twelve months' net base salary. UNDT awarded the Applicant three months¡¯ net base salary as moral damages. UNDT awarded the Applicant USD5,000 for the unfair treatment at the hands of her managers. UNDT noted that the two managers literally destroyed the Applicant¡¯s career and made decisions in clear breach of...

The context of the impugned decision was important because it was central to the Applicant¡¯s case that the decision to exclude her from the comparative review exercise which led to her separation, was made in bad faith, and that it stemmed from the conflict surrounding the decision to transfer her from the CAS Office to the Supply Section. The Applicant¡¯s case was that she was unlawfully excluded from the comparative review pool for Warehouse Assistants. The Applicant was transferred to the Supply Section despite her repeated protests and the explanation given was that the move was made to...

As the Applicant withdrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

The Applicant¡¯s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant¡¯s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...