Â鶹APP

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal held that in matters relating to Appendix D of the Staff Rules it has jurisdiction to determine: (i) whether the ABCC correctly followed the procedure applicable to medical claims; (ii) whether it properly directed its mind to the relevant issues; and (iii) whether the evidence on which it based its determination was adequate or flawed. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to make any such assessment and to substitute its own evaluation for the one reached by an expert body like the ABCC. Request for reconsideration: The Tribunal found that...

Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether it has the requisite jurisdiction to make a determination on an application for interpretation of an order as opposed to a final judgment. Noting that: (i) there is no provision in the UNDT Statute or Rules of Procedure governing interpretation of orders or expressly prohibiting interpretation of a decision that is labeled ¡°Order¡±; and (ii) that regardless of whether decisions on applications for suspension of action are labeled as orders or judgments, they determine substantial issues, the Tribunal, pursuant to articles 19 and 36 of the Rules of...

The UNDT found that the Respondent¡¯s argument that no promise had been made was untenable. The evidence clearly indicated that UNOPS Managers knew the Applicant would rely on the statements they made to her in regards to a one year contract extension. The Respondent repeatedly disregarded its own rules and regulations in the course of completing the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal and subsequently conducted a flawed rebuttal process which was biased and unfair and violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Promises made created expectancy of renewal - It is untenable for the Administration...

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

The Tribunal concluded that the established facts did not legally amount to misconduct and that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore, a violation of her rights. Breadth of judicial review: When reviewing disciplinary matters, the role of the Tribunal is to look at all the facts, including the facts that came up during the investigation. Thus, the Tribunal is entitled to look at the manner in which the investigation was conducted; the facts gathered; the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence. ST/AI/371: The Tribunal noted that: (i)...

The ST/SGB/2008/5 requirement for the administration to act promptly on complaints of prohibited activity was not observed in the case of the Applicant¡¯s complaint. UNDT required more information on the present state of the process and held that this case was suitable to remand for institution or correction of the required procedure. UNDT suspended the proceedings and orderd the Secretary-General to advise UNDT of the present position of the investivgation into the Applicant¡¯s complaint and whether he concurs with the remand of the case for institution and correction of the procedure under ST...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant nullified his request for management evaluation by asking the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) to put his request on hold indefinitely and by not seeking reinstatement of said request later on. Administrative decision: The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant filed a management evaluation request, there was no administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute outstanding when this request was filed because his fixed term appointment had been extended to 30 June 2012.

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.