The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was “detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputationâ€. Second, by arguing that “she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority†and “rehabilitate†her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical...
Showing 1 - 10 of 1169
The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-UNAT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.
As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.
The UNDT held that imposition of a sanction is not just a mechanical exercise, since the sanction should not be “more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result.
A written censure would have been a suitably “meaningful consequence†and sufficient to impress upon the Applicant the error of his actions. The record indicates that he acknowledged that he should have sought authorisation before registering his company.
The Tribunal therefore finds that the sanction in this case was disproportionate to the misconduct by adding to the written censure an additional, unnecessary...
Appealed
In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered “N/A†when asked after “is your...
The Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal (which were also approved by the General Assembly), expressly provide that “published judgements will normally include the names of the parties.†Even if names were within the ambit of “personal dataâ€, it appears clear that this Tribunal must balance the need for accountability with the need to protect personal data according to the circumstances of each case. In so doing, it is the general practice of this judge to avoid using names, other than the parties, to protect the anonymity of innocent persons somehow involved in the case. As a victim of...
Appealed
In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant’s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.
Applying either evidentiary...
Having considered all the submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the main issue for determination was whether the hiring manager conducted a fair and unbiased assessment of the Applicant’s candidacy, giving it full and fair consideration.
The spreadsheet submitted by the Respondent in response to Order No. 57 (GVA/2024) sheds a light into the matter. This contemporaneous document showcases the hiring manager’s thorough assessment of the Applicant’s professional experience.
The Applicant’s submissions concerning his title, long satisfactory service, OiC experience...
The Tribunal observed that the purpose of the special education grant appears to be to ensure that staff members who have children with special needs are provided with assistance in meeting certain extra expenses, over and beyond the normal ones, that the staff members may incur in educating such children with special needs. The Tribunal found that under the circumstances, the Applicant was justified to transport his child with a disability to the required after-school therapy and special education classes using his private motor vehicle. The Tribunal further found that the Administration’s... |
Discretionary authority
Bias/favouritism
Scope of investigation
Restructuring
Referral for accountability
Discrimination and other improper motives
Investigation
Reassignment or transfer
The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, “OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any actionâ€.
Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.
As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration’s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of P-4 Reviser (Russian) was lawful in that he was given full and fair consideration for the position.
The Tribunal found that the applicable procedures were properly followed, and that the Applicant’s allegations of procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated.
With respect to full and fair consideration, the Tribunal noted that after reviewing the applications based on the established evaluation criteria, four candidates were deemed not to be suitable and five candidates...