Â鶹APP

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal rejected the application as being not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant¡¯s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the Â鶹APP common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the Â鶹APP common system.

Selection processes and job openingsThe Tribunal appreciates that the selection process for a post starts with the creation of a job opening (sec. 3.1 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual) and ends when the Head of the Office/Department makes the selection decision (sec. 14.3.7 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual). A new job opening represents the beginning of a new selection process and cannot be created and or viewed as a continuation of a previous selection process that has been initiated by the publication of the first job opening for the same post. Composition of assessment panelThe Tribunal notes...

The Tribunal considered that the application was not receivable on the grounds that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing his application before the Tribunal.

Announcement of NYGSCAC composition The Tribunal notes that ST/IC/2011/17 (Membership of the New York General Service Classification Appeals Committee) was issued by the ASG/OHRM on 7 June 2011, on the same day that the NYGSCAC issued its report.The Applicants¡¯ right to be informed of the composition of the NYGSCAC in a timely manner was not respected. Moreover, the NYGSCAC, as an appellate body, must have impartial members to ensure the fairness of the review, and the appellants must have the possibility to request the replacement of any member, including the chairperson, if any of them are...

The staff selection system versus lateral moves: This Tribunal is of the view that, because secs. 2.1 to 2.3 of ST/AI/2010/3 refer to the selection system, including the roster, and sec. 2.5 refers to transfer, which is excluded from the scope of the staff selection system, in accordance with sec. 3.2(l), the hiring manager and the head of department must give priority and exercise their discretion firstly by implementing the roster system right from the beginning of it, deciding if any pre-approved candidate from the roster (who is reviewed and endorsed by a central review body and has been...

Neither DSS, OHRM, the CRB nor the ASG/OHRM conducted a reasoned analysis on how the date and the gravity of the disciplinary sanction impacted on the recommendation(s) and/or the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. The Administration failed to apply its own Guidelines requiring that a mandatory review of the date and gravity of the disciplinary measure applied to the Applicant be conducted and that any resulting decision include a reasoned explanation thereto.

Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant¡¯s MEU request indicated that he...

The Tribunal found that the USG/DESA complied with ST/SGB/2008/5 by closing the case and providing the Applicant with a summary of the Investigation Panel¡¯s findings and conclusions. However the applicable mandatory time limits for assessing the complaint, appointing the panel and submitting the final investigation report were not respected. The Applicant is awarded a compensation in the total amount of USD2,300. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not gather sufficient evidence or erred in reaching its findings and conclusions presented in the report...

The Tribunal found that the Administration violated the rights of the Applicant by not including the PAD cycle year 2009 when making the termination decision in July 2010. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision and compensation for material damage equivalent to the loss of salary until her early retirement date on 1 May 2011. When terminating a contract for unsatisfactory service, the PAD reports to be taken into consideration must be the ones immediately preceding the non-renewal decision, so the PAD cycle years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for a termination decision made in...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to declare the existence of his friendship with the selected candidate, including in response to a direct inquiry prior to the completion of the selection process and during the disciplinary process, and that his actions affected the impartiality and fairness of the selection process and the trust vested in him. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during each phase of the disciplinary process and the sanction imposed was proportional to the misconduct. The application is therefore rejected. The Applicant did not demonstrate that there...

The Tribunal found that the decision regarding the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement has a crucial impact on the case because had his request to be reinstated be considered positively, his service with the Organization would have been considered continuous. The Tribunal ordered the Administration to decide on the request for reinstatement after a policy including the conditions for reinstatement is promulgated and to review, afterward, the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment. The Tribunal remanded the contested decision to the...

There being no evidence that real ongoing informal resolution efforts took place between the date on which the Applicant was notified of the decision on 26 May 2011 and when he filed his request for management evaluation on 4 August 2011, the time limit was not extended and his request for management evaluation was not receivable (time barred). The Tribunal concludes that there was no genuine informal resolution efforts conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and there was no request for extension of time addressed to the Secretary-General by the Applicant. The 4 August 2011 request for...

The UNDT found that OHRM¡¯s decision not to consider (endorse) her for a temporary P-3 post in DM (Umoja) and to deny her conversion from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level was valid and lawful. The decision not to consider the applicant eligible for a temporary P-3 post was correct since she only fulfilled one of the mandatory and cumulative conditions ¨C five years of professional experience ¨C in November 2011. The Organization properly determined that the Applicant could not be converted from the FS-6 level to the P-3 level because there was no contractual relationship between the Applicant and...

Upon review, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not commit the misconduct of providing false information in his annual leave report. The Respondent correctly established the facts for the remaining charges of the misconduct. However, the Respondent did not fully take into account all the mitigating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction. The Tribunal found the disciplinary measure disproportionate to the misconduct and modified it. The contested decision is rescinded. The disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of...

The Applicant does not deny that her claim for compensation regarding two claims under Appendix D to the Staff Rules was time-barred. Rather, she submits that the record shows that the delay incurred by her in submitting a claim to the ABCC was the result of her being unable to obtain clear advice from HRMS regarding the process to follow with regard to submitting a claim to the ABCC. The ABCC decision is partially rescinded and the Applicant¡¯s request for the reimbursement of the Ayurveda treatment is remanded to the ABCC for a fair and full consideration. The Tribunal included observations...

In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.

The Applicants have withdrawn the matter in finality, including on the merits. UNDT dismissed the application in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.