��ż���

Having established that the Applicant was duly notified of the contested decision on 22 May 2023, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation should have been filed by 22 July 2023, at the latest. Since the Applicant only filed the request for management evaluation on 23 November 2023, the Tribunal further found that the application was not receivable.

As Counsel for the Applicant admitted that the Administration had already substantially settled the Applicant’s tax liability claims for 2022 and 2023, the Tribunal also considered those aspects of the application as moot.

The...

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not “clear and convincing evidence” but “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

The Tribunal found the application to be receivable on the basis that a negative performance rating does produce legal consequences for the affected staff member and is reviewable.

In the Tribunal’s view, the Respondent failed to show that the USG engaged the Applicant in a proper performance discussion or provided sufficient feedback of a performance shortcoming as required by secs. 7.1, 7.2 and 10.1 of ST/AI/2021/4. he Tribunal found no evidence of a discussion between the USG and the Applicant which could be classified as a performance milestone discussion, one which sets out clear targets...

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of “administrative decision” within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by UNFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by UNFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...

The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant’s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the “non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds”. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was “due to lack of funds”. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the UNICEF Field Office (“CFO”) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, “Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter”. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.

The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of “D”. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant’s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

Receivability

The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.

First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with UNDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.

Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...