ɫ��TV

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant’s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of “successfully meets expectations”. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant’s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...

The Tribunal understands that in light of HR’s emails, the Applicant could have reasonably understood by mistake that his contract would be further extended pending proceedings in his cases before the Dispute Tribunal. As the Applicant did not request management evaluation within that deadline and waited until 22 June 2019, his application is not receivable.

The evidence showed that the Applicant’s post was abolished and his fixed-term appointment was not extended for this reason. Therefore, the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was lawful. The Applicant has adduced insufficient evidence that he was promised a renewal. The Applicant should have been aware that his fixed-term appointment expired automatically at the end of its term. The Administration properly notified the Applicant of the non-renewal of his appointment. While the notification of the decision not to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment did not state...

The investigation complied with the requirements set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 and the Applicant was afforded proper due process. The provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5 do not grant a right to staff members who bring complaints of prohibited conduct given to interview certain witnesses in order to confront his accusersand therefore finds no merit to this claim of an irregularity. The Fact-Finding Panel fully considered all relevant and material aspects of the Applicant’s complaint. In smaller entities in the Organization, a head of office may also be required to act as a Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”)...

The Applicant was not entitled to an increase in step, therefore, the Administration had the right to the correction of an error, and it did not constitute a retroactive application of rules and regulations. The Administration lawfully recovered the overpayment of entitlements resulted from an administrative error.

Any changes to the Applicant’s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office’s work. The Applicant’s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

The Applicant does not question whether this presentation of the applicable law is comprehensible, but rather intends to reargue his case that the contested selection processes were unlawful. As the Tribunal further finds that paras. 14 to 17, as well as the remaining parts of Judgment No. UNDT/2020/075, are straightforward and easy to understand.

The Administration informed the Applicant that “it will issue an administrative reprimand”. The request for management evaluation was made within 60 days of that communication and the application is therefore receivable even if the actual reprimand was issued months later. The Administration decided that the Applicant did not exercise her discretion and regulated her conduct “with the interests of the United Nations only in view” and the expression of her personal views. While there is no specific rule requiring the Applicant to consult with UNICEF before expressing her personal views, that...

The Respondent did not prove that the Applicant was appropriately informed about the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment at the 25 October 2018 meeting. Since no other communication regarding the non-renewal has been submitted in evidence except the separation letter dated 22 January 2019, the Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 23 January 2019 was therefore timely pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c). The decision to abolish the Applicant’s post is not a decision that can be appealed separately in the present case, and the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract is also...