ɫ��TV

The Tribunal sought to find whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver of the receivability requirements. In the light of the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal, the UNDT reaffirmed that “exceptional circumstances” are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. In the present matter, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had totally failed to establish that he was hampered by exceptional circumstances to pursue his case with due diligence. The Tribunal found that the matter was time-barred.

The main legal issue in this case is whether there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. The Respondent made the bare assertion that the communication dated 21 September 2007 mistakenly referred to the cancellation of his appointment, whereas it was a withdrawal of the offer. Therefore, according to the Respondent no contract was created, the Applicant was not a staff member, and his application is not receivable. The Applicant submitted that there was a duly constituted contract between the parties. UNDT found that the offer of appointment accepted by the Applicant and the...

The applicants appealed the imposition of disciplinary measures on the grounds that the evidence against them was unfairly obtained as the applicants were not informed that they were under investigation or suspected of misconduct and that this breach of due process vitiated the imposition of disciplinary measures. A breach of the right to due process is both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Tribunal cannot uphold the findings and conclusions of a disciplinary process that was fundamentally flawed where the panel failed to uphold the applicants’ rights to due process. Outcome: The...

UNDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. UNDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant’s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. UNDT found that the applicant’s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, UNDT found that the applicant’s rights were violated when the...

The decision to remove the Applicant from the position of Rule of Law Project Manager: The UN Charter expects all staff members to conduct themselves in accordance with the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. Further, there is implied into every contract of employment a term of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee, which means that both parties must act responsibly and in good faith. Where the employer acts unilaterally in removing an important part of the employee’s functions, the employer would have repudiated the contract of employment. The...

The Organization cannot with propriety resort to reliance on particular provisions in its Rules and Regulations which were arguably inconsistent with a representation merely because the Rules and Regulations are referred to as a whole in the Letter of Appointment. Not only was the respondent in breach of its contract with the applicant by deciding arbitrarily and capriciously not to renew his contract (as had been admitted) but it was in breach of the contract by not renewing it in accordance with the undertaking to do so if the applicant’s performance was satisfactory. The applicant’s...

The Tribunal found that the performance appraisal followed by the rebuttal process had been done in respect of the rules and procedures applicable to UNDP. Based on the documentary evidence, it was the view of the Tribunal that, as a matter of fact, the Management went out of his way to afford the Applicant with as much latitude as possible to comment and challenge the rating of “partially met expectations”. With regards to the Applicant’s allegations of harassment, retaliation and discrimination, the Tribunal found that both the UNDP Ethics Office and the UN Central Ethics Office followed the...

Since the applicant, in a timely manner, addressed his requests to competent officials within the former system of internal justice and followed the advice received from them, it was beyond his control that he did not file his request for administrative review within the time limits; therefore, exceptional circumstances are given. In view of the provision of the letter of appointment quoted above, no termination was possible without keeping a thirty days notice period. The decision to terminate the appointment with immediate effect is in noncompliance with the applicant’s terms of appointment...

The applicant was entitled to be immediately informed or placed in the same position as he would have been had he been immediately informed. The failure to give timely notice, given the history of the case, gave rise to the legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed. Outcome: Held that the applicant had no legitimate expectation of renewal of his contract and that decision not to renew was based on proper grounds and was not affected by irrelevant considerations. Held also that the applicant was entitled to be informed of the decision that he was regarded by the Organization as...

The application is prima facie not receivable before the UN Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former UN Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the UN Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.