Â鶹APP

The Tribunal found the first application receivable because a response to the Applicant¡¯s request for implementation of the award of the continuing appointment of which he was notified by Inspira on 3 November 2016 was only made by the MICT on 31 May 2017. The Applicant was still within the prescribed time limits of 60 days under staff rule 11.3(c) when he sought management evaluation on 11 July. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant transferred from DPKO, which is part of the Secretariat, to the MICT. Before the said transfer, the Applicant had been invited by OHRM to...

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...

The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his...

With respect to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the UNIFIL Head...

The case of misconduct against the Applicant was established by clear and convincing evidence. The Appeals Tribunal has previously made findings on staff members whose occupations within the Â鶹APP system place them in ¡°positions[s] of trust¡± and held that a breach of that trust impacts negatively ¡°on the issue of proportionality.¡± Security officers within the Â鶹APP system similarly occupy positions of trust, charged as they are with the protection of personnel and property of the Â鶹APP. In established cases of theft, the sanction is usually severe. The sanction of...

The Applicant had unusually received SPA for the more than the four-year period she performed functions at a higher level (February 2012 ¨C June 2016). The post she encumbered was reclassified upwards to the FS-6 level in 2012, not 2006. The Tribunal refused her claim that she was performing higher-level functions between 2006 and 2012 when those functions were not recognized through an upward reclassification as higher-level functions. Additionally, under section 6.2(c) of ST/AI/2003/3, in respect of posts reclassified upwards at established missions, an SPA may not become effective before the...

The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that the actions of the Applicant as seen on the video footages were sufficient to rise to the required standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence to establish stealing; but found that the actions of the Applicant after he left with the shopping bag and the glaring inconsistencies in his testimony clearly pointed to a level of dishonesty betraying guilty knowledge that he did not pay for the items at issue. In other words, the Applicant knew that he did not pay for certain items especially after he, a career security officer, was accosted...

UNDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. UNDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with UNDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. UNDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

UNDT held that the Settlement Agreement was properly before UNDT for its enforcement. UNDT noted that there was no special procedure prescribed by the UNDT Statute or Rules of Procedure or even by any of its Practice Directions for an applicant to bring an application for the enforcement of a Settlement Agreement. UNDT held that there was bad faith on part of the Respondent in regard to the Settlement Agreement by the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. UNDT found that: a. The MONUSCO Administration exhibited bad faith during the negotiations by not informing the Applicant until after he...

The parties were at odds as to the procedure for establishing a medical board under art. 17 of Appendix D. The Applicant¡¯s case was that the ABCC failed to adhere to art. 17(b) of former Appendix D because it failed to establish a medical board to consider and report on the medical aspects of his claim. The Respondent submitted that the onus was on the Applicant to request the establishment of a medical board and to nominate a medical practitioner to represent him on the medical board. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s submission that the Applicant was obliged to request a medical board...

The Applicant indicated on page 4 of his application that he received the response to his management evaluation request on 21 June 2018. Thus, to be in compliance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute, the Applicant should have filed his application to the UNDT by 19 September 2018 but he did not do so until 6 October 2018, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline, to file his application. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Although the Applicant made considerable effort...

While staff regulation 1.2(c) provides that in exercising his authority to assign staff members to activities or offices of the Â鶹APP, the Secretary-General shall seek to ensure that ¡°all necessary safety and security arrangements are made for staff carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to them,¡± such arrangements are not, in all circumstances, merely limited to physical safety and security. Reassigning a staff member from a core P-5 post established by the General Assembly to a General Temporary Assistance (GTA)-funded P-5 post established by ESCWA did not satisfy the test of a...

The context of the impugned decision was important because it was central to the Applicant¡¯s case that the decision to exclude her from the comparative review exercise which led to her separation, was made in bad faith, and that it stemmed from the conflict surrounding the decision to transfer her from the CAS Office to the Supply Section. The Applicant¡¯s case was that she was unlawfully excluded from the comparative review pool for Warehouse Assistants. The Applicant was transferred to the Supply Section despite her repeated protests and the explanation given was that the move was made 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...

The Applicant duly performed the obligation to inform the Administration within the stipulated timelines of his ill health and diligently initiated and maintained communication with his supervisor, UNMISS Human Resources Section (HRS), the UNMISS Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Services Division (MSD). He sent all documentation requested of him in that regard. The review and non-certification of the Applicant¡¯s sick leave were unduly delayed by the MSD and that the said delay was prejudicial to the Applicant. MSD and UNMISS/HRS owed a duty to the Applicant to advise him of the option...

1) With regard to Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The only decision under Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent¡¯s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Tribunal...

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...

While the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation before filing this application, she was, however, required to file her application with UNDT within; 90 calendar days of receiving the contested decision. The Applicant¡¯s 25 March 2018 motion for waiver failed to comply with the stringent requirement pronounced by the Appeal¡¯s Tribunal in Thiam because it was not filed prior to the filing of her substantive application but more than five months after the fact. Additionally, the Applicant¡¯s passing mention of receivability in her 17 October 2017 application cannot be...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...

The Tribunal held that the evidence before it showed that the Applicant had signed a contract with UNOPS governed by the terms and conditions of the UNOPS Individual Contractor Agreement which, among others, provided that the Applicant had a status of an independent contractor, and was not to be regarded, for any purpose, as a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the Â鶹APP. Therefore, the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the Â鶹APP, had no locus standi before the Tribunal. As a result, the application was struck out as being not...