Â鶹APP

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...

Confirmative decisions: These decisions do not re-open time limits for formal contestation.

The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent¡¯s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...

The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the UNDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...

Reason to believe: that a staff member has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct is buttressed by a fact-finding, which in turn creates the requirement to investigate.Fact-Finding: fact-finding process is the collection and analysis of information to determine the veracity of an allegation against a staff member. It is a prerequisite for an investigation and cannot replace an investigation. As such cannot be used as the basis for imposing a disciplinary measure. Investigation: A disciplinary process can only be initiated based on proper official investigation being conducted under ST/AI/371.

The application is filed within the statutory deadline and is therefore receivable.

Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members¡¯ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

The events leading up to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service do not amount to a termination. The Applicant was in fact wrongly placed on Special Leave With Full Pay from 21 May 2004 to 31 December 2004. UNDP guidelines on Results and Competency Assessment do not confer any power on the Resident Representative to place a staff member on special leave with full pay for unsatisfactory performance as was done by the RR in this case. Not only was the decision to place the Applicant on SLWFP illegal, it was a disguised disciplinary measure designed to humiliate and embarrass the Applicant to the...

The Administration, having reviewed the OIOS report, had reason to believe that the Applicant may have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct for which disciplinary measures may be imposed. The discretion was exercised judiciously by the responsible officers after review of the OIOS Investigation Report. The findings of the ASG/OHRM were those of an objective observer who had scrutinized the entire dossier and made conclusions on the basis of the evidence before him. There was no procedural irregularity on the part of the Organization as there was full compliance with ST/AI/371. Where an Applicant...