Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. Contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the application was required to be submitted by 9 November 2014 and not by 9 October 2014, which would have afforded the Applicant only 60 calendar days instead of the 90 days stipulated in staff rule 11.4(a).
Administration’s discretion in constituting interview panels for temporary appointments - It is within the discretion of the Administration as to how the interview panel for a temporary position is constituted as long as the composition of the said panel is consistent with the requirements of ST/AI/201/4/Rev. 1.
The Tribunal found that the decision to separate the Applicant for abandonment of post was not unlawful because: the Applicant was absent from duty he did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for failure to report to work the Administration followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal laws of the Organization and the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the impropriety that he alleged.
The Tribunal held that the managers concerned acted in accordance with the obligations placed on them by sections 9 and 10 of ST/AI/400. Given the fact that the Applicant absented himself from work in Sector East without proper authorization and failed to heed the advice and requests sent to him, the Organization did not act unlawfully in taking steps to place him on SLWOP. Moreover, it was lawful for the Organization to take steps to recover payments made in advance in respect of education grant and travel in circumstances where such advances were not utilised for the purpose for which they...
The Tribunal carefully examined all the correspondence between the parties and was not persuaded by the Respondent’s argument that the contested administrative decision was conclusively made and communicated to the Applicant on 28 June 2016. The Tribunal was of the view that the correspondence between the parties did not bear out the said argument and found that the Respondent had not apprised himself of all relevant facts on 28 June 2016 when he rejected the claim for an education grant and reimbursement of mother tongue tuition. In the prevailing circumstances, the Tribunal held that the...
The impugned decision of 21 April 2015 clearly: a) emanated from the Administration and b) produced direct legal consequences for the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s appointment. As such, the decision was capable of being subject to management evaluation as well as capable of being reviewed by the UNDT. The Applicant had until 90 days from 8 June 2015 to file an application before UNDT. The Applicant did not do so until 1 March 2016. The application is, therefore, late by almost six months. The Applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would warrant waiving the time...
The Respondent withdrew from the impugned decision to change the Applicant’s functional title from Team Assistant to Language Assistant. Accordingly, the claim was moot at the time of the filing of the application and therefore not receivable. With respect to the decision to remove the Applicant’s responsibility for the Litani magazine the Tribunal found that this claim was not the subject of management evaluation and therefore not receivability. With respect to the Applicant’s reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the impugned decision entailed a change in the Applicant’s place, her...
The Applicant’s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...
The Tribunal concluded that the decision to separate the Applicant was discriminatory, constituted abuse of authority and was therefore unlawful because of the apparent bad faith on the part of the Applicant’s supervisor in initiating and concluding a new recruitment contrary to the Civilian Staffing Review recommendation, and her unauthorized nationalization of the Applicant’s post one year before the approved date. To ensure the Applicant’s continuity of service when decisions are being made about her eligibility for a continuing appointment and after service health insurance, the Tribunal...
UNDT held that it was a case in which the host country was not forthcoming or did not provide reasons which justified the PNG decision. UNDT held that once the Organisation had verbally stated, determined and notified the Applicant that the allegations against her were not considered misconduct, it had a duty as per Hassouna (UNDT/2014/094) not to change the terms and conditions of her contract. UNDT held that the Secretary-General had the power to reassign the Applicant on an exceptional basis and should have done so. UNDT held that, according to Hassouna, the Organisation could not resort to...
