Â鶹APP

The Respondent repeatedly told the Applicant in writing from July 2018 to May 2019 that there was no change in his functions, and he was to perform the same duties that had always been assigned in Ramallah. The Respondent¡¯s many reiterations, up to May 2019, of the position made clear since September 2018 did not give rise to a new challengeable decision so as to bring forward the time within which a request for management evaluation could be made.; In accordance with staff rule 11.2(c) it was incumbent on the Applicant to challenge, in a timely manner, the underlying decision and any alleged...

Having proposed closure of the Kisangani site to the General Assembly and the corollary budgetary reductions, the Respondent proceeded with the implementation of his proposal. Rather than reduce the term of the Applicant¡¯s appointment, the Respondent opted instead to lighten the footprint in the Kisangani site by having those; whose services were no longer necessary to go home but without it affecting their benefits or entitlements. The natural consequence of this process was that the Applicant was left with no tasks to perform. While this may have been an unorthodox arrangement, nothing in...

Having proposed closure of the Kamina site to the General Assembly and the corollary budgetary reductions, the Respondent proceeded with the implementation of his proposal. The natural consequence of this process was that the Applicant was left with no tasks to perform. The decision did not amount to a de facto termination by cutting; short the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The appointment continued until the expiration date on 30 June 2019 but was not renewed due to the abolition of the post. There was nothing in the parties¡¯ submissions to show that the decision was perverse or tainted so as to...

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant¡¯s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent¡¯s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors¡¯ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...

The acts of sexual harassment committed by the Applicant were of such a persistent and offensive nature that in keeping with the Organization¡¯s zero-tolerance policy he could not remain on the job. However, the Organization¡¯s policy on care and support for persons suffering with mental illness was also clear. The Applicant¡¯s behaviour was influenced by severe mental illness. The illness ought to have been addressed in a more timely and considerate manner by the Respondent by denying his clearance to return to work in March 2015 and in August 2016. He may then have retired due to ill-health...

The application is rejected. UN Women, in denying the Applicant¡¯s request for an ex gratia payment in lieu of Special Post Allowance, did not exceed its authority. UN Women did not fail to properly apply staff rule 12.3(b) as the requested ex gratia payment was a matter that could not be treated as an exception to the Staff Rules by applying staff rule 12.3(b). Additionally, under UN Women¡¯s Financial Regulations and Rules, the request made by the Applicant does not fall within the parameters for an ex gratia payment. There is no basis within the regulatory framework for further reward by way...

The Applicant¡¯s conduct was in violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and rule 1.2(f) and constitutes misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did make efforts to persuade her supervisee to forego attempting mediation to resolve their interpersonal disputes and threatened that mediation could adversely affect her supervisee¡¯s career. In particular, the Applicant implied that should her supervisee pursue mediation, her supervisee would develop a bad reputation and that mediation lacked confidentiality. The Applicant further indicated that there may be a negative impact on the chances of...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant¡¯s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office¡¯s recommendation only required that ¡°efforts be made¡±, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section.; The Ethics...

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c).; The decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract is also...

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...