Judge Boolell
The Tribunal held that whether an Applicant should be given reasons for the non-renewal of his or her fixed-term contract, even though fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal, should be analyzed on a case by case basis. The Tribunal cited Obdeijn UNDT/2011/032 which stated that “even though a staff member does not have a right to an automatic renewal of a fixed-term contract, a decision not to renew such a contract may not be taken for improper motives, and the Tribunal is required to consider whether the motives were proper or whether countervailing circumstances existed in the...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had submitted her request for management evaluation nearly three years after the events she was contesting occurred. The Tribunal, therefore, held that any blame for the failure of the Applicant’s case rests firmly at her own door.
Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...
The Tribunal concluded that there was cogent evidence that extraneous factors were taken into account in the decision not to extend the Applicant’s contract. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had sufficiently discharged his burden of proof. He showed that the actions of the Respondent’s agents were unfair, improperly motivated, and wholly arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that since summary dismissal/termination may have been the possible outcome at the end of the disciplinary process, the Respondent had to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the daily casual worker (Mary) was transferred to MovCon as a result of the alleged sexual relationship between her and the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were not established and that the facts which were established did not legally amount to misconduct under the Regulations and Rules of the United Nations. Consequently, the...
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, having considered the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that everything pointed to a suspect reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract. The Respondent did not give a clear reason for non-renewal, even after the Applicant specifically requested for it. The Tribunal, thus concluded that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant’s contract was to expire on 29 February 2012. The Applicant had...
The Tribunal found that the Assistant Secretary-General had conducted a fair review and had not merely rubber-stamped the Executive Secretary’s recommendation and that some of the allegations appeared well-founded so that in principle consideration of administrative leave was not improper. However, the feasibility of redeployment was not properly considered by the Executive Secretary, who had informed the ASG that there were no suitable posts available and that it would in any event be costly to redeploy the Applicant. In fact it appeared that there was a post available, to which the Applicant...
The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...
The Tribunal agreed that the Applicant had had a legitimate expectation of promotion but found that the granting of SPA compensated him adequately in the circumstances. It is not possible for the Tribunal to order promotion from General Service to any other category as this has been specifically prohibited by the General Assembly. The Applicant’s reliance on UNAdT 1169 Abebe was misplaced because in that case the Respondent was not granted a promotion, rather it found that Abebe was eligible for promotion. The distinction is important. However, the Tribunal did find that the Applicant was...
The Tribunal did not find any evidence of sexual exploitation and abuse as defined by the SGB. The Tribunal considered the definition of pornography and on viewing the images concluded that they were obscene, hardcore pornography. In view of the Applicant’s admissions and the quantity of materials on his official computer, the misconduct charge in that respect was well founded. The Applicant’s submission that the evidence was fruit of the poison tree and therefore inadmissible was rejected on the basis that the illegally obtained evidence (a CD) merely triggered the investigation but did not...
An appeal to an internal review panel established for such purpose did not amount to a written request for management evaluation addressed to the Secretary-General.
The Tribunal found that the Executive Secretary of ECA, who made the decision to fill the post from the roster, was not acting unlawfully in so doing, since ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system) permitted this.
The Tribunal found that the acts complained of amounted to misconduct under Staff Regulation 1.2 and Staff Rule 301.3(d) as conduct unbecoming of an international civil servant and as sexual harassment in connection with work. A written censure was a lenient sanction in the circumstances. Sexual harassment in connection with work, as prohibited by Staff Rule 301.3(d), includes a situation where outside the workplace a staff member perpetrated an act of sexual harassment upon another staff member.
Execution of UNAdT judgments: The UNAdT had, and by virtue of the transfer of cases to it, the UNDT has, power to order execution of judgments of the former UNAdT just as it has power to deal with applications for execution under its own Statute and Rules. Time limit for applying for execution of judgment: no time limit is set out in the rules and no party should be without a remedy where execution of judgments is in issue. In this case the Applicant had done all he could to bring the matter to early resolution, it was not his fault that his earlier requests had been ignored. Damages for non...
OSLA is an integral part of the Secretariat of the United Nations and that its decisions are taken under the umbrella of the Secretary-General. OSLA’s decisions may be challenged to the extent that they are strictly administrative decisions and are not related to the giving of advice to litigants or the conduct of cases before the UNDT. It must be noted however that the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not limited to the author of the decision but most importantly to its nature. In order to establish that the administrative decision impacts on the contract of employment or terms of...
From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of UNRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the UNDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against UNRWA before the former UN Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in UNRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the UNDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...
On 19 October 2011, the Tribunal issued Order No. 129 (NBI/2011) suspending the implementation of the contested decision until 10 November 2011 allowing the Tribunal to allow the filing of the Respondent’s Reply, the hearing held on 3 November 2011 and the determination of the matter. The Applicant was communicated the response from MEU on 27 October 2011 as well as the Secretary-General’s response. The Applicant filed his case on the merits, registered in the Dispute Tribunal’s records as UNDT/NBI/2011/070 and simultaneously filed under article 14 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure...
The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...
The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...
The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.