É«¿âTV

Home leave: The Tribunal concluded that there is nothing in staff rule 5.2 which indicates that the extension or the duration of the extension of a contract of employment is to be decided along with the sick leave entitlements of a staff member. Extension and sick leave cannot be merged to motivate a decision on whether to extend a contract or not. The entitlement to home leave is premised on 12 months service at a designated duty station with the sole condition that the service of the staff member is expected to continue at least three months after the staff member returns to the duty station...

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words ¡°calendar days;¡± and if [¡­] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The...

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant had been working with UNON as an independent contractor, the Tribunal held that he was not a staff member of UNON and as such, he has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply ¡°give¡± the Applicant another position within UNEP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate...

ReceivabilityThe placement of a staff member on administrative leave is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. It is an administrative decision for the purposes of art. 8.1 (c) of the Statute and within the well settled meaning of an administrative action as laid down in Andronov. The Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to determine the validity of an administrative decision unless it has been first referred to the Management Evaluation Unit pursuant to art.11.2 of the Staff Rules. In the absence of management evaluation of the decision to place the Applicant on administrative leave...

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal held that in matters relating to Appendix D of the Staff Rules it has jurisdiction to determine: (i) whether the ABCC correctly followed the procedure applicable to medical claims; (ii) whether it properly directed its mind to the relevant issues; and (iii) whether the evidence on which it based its determination was adequate or flawed. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to make any such assessment and to substitute its own evaluation for the one reached by an expert body like the ABCC. Request for reconsideration: The Tribunal found that...

There are two aspects to the evidential burden resting on a staff member who claims dependency benefits for his/her child or children where he/she is not the custodial parent. The first aspect relates to the nature of the evidence required and the second aspect concerns the degree of proof required. As for the nature of the evidence required, a staff member will have discharged the evidential burden once he/she has presented documentation pertaining to the existence of the child or children, a divorce decree and proof of custody, proof of payment and the amounts paid and the means of payment...

The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent¡¯s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant¡¯s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...

Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether it has the requisite jurisdiction to make a determination on an application for interpretation of an order as opposed to a final judgment. Noting that: (i) there is no provision in the UNDT Statute or Rules of Procedure governing interpretation of orders or expressly prohibiting interpretation of a decision that is labeled ¡°Order¡±; and (ii) that regardless of whether decisions on applications for suspension of action are labeled as orders or judgments, they determine substantial issues, the Tribunal, pursuant to articles 19 and 36 of the Rules of...

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

The Tribunal concluded that the established facts did not legally amount to misconduct and that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore, a violation of her rights. Breadth of judicial review: When reviewing disciplinary matters, the role of the Tribunal is to look at all the facts, including the facts that came up during the investigation. Thus, the Tribunal is entitled to look at the manner in which the investigation was conducted; the facts gathered; the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence. ST/AI/371: The Tribunal noted that: (i)...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant nullified his request for management evaluation by asking the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) to put his request on hold indefinitely and by not seeking reinstatement of said request later on. Administrative decision: The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant filed a management evaluation request, there was no administrative decision within the meaning of article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute outstanding when this request was filed because his fixed term appointment had been extended to 30 June 2012.

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General¡¯s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concludes that it was unreasonable and wrong to have withdrawn the offer of the FS-5 position. The matter is made worse as the offer was withdrawn after a long period of protracted exchange of correspondence between the Applicant and the Respondent. Informal dispute resolution: It is obvious that meaningful consultations towards the resolution of a dispute, when deliberated on in good faith, would serve the interest of management and the staff member. It would engender a collegial work environment and remove the antagonism and friction that usually results from workplace disputes...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant should have been given a one-year extension in Entebbe so that he would have been entitled to the benefits and entitlements that ordinarily accompany such a contract. Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that there was an administrative decision in that the Applicant was challenging a continuum of events - the repeated short-term renewal of his appointment stemming from the decision of the Government of Sudan to oust him from its territory. The Tribunal held that this was a decision of ¡°individual application¡± with ¡°direct legal consequences¡± to the...

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was notified to the Applicant on 30 June 2008 and yet he waited until 20 January 2014, more than five years after the fact, to submit a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal concluded that where an applicant fails to request management evaluation in a timely manner, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider his/her application. Lastly, the Tribunal noted that even if it was minded to consider the Application, the provisions of article 8.4 of the UNDT Statute clearly place a bar on any such action. Costs...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that although UNIFEM/UNDP subsequently took a decision to process the Applicant¡¯s separation from service in 2012, the Tribunal concluded that this was not an appealable administrative decision in accordance with article 2.1 of the UNDT Statute in that the Applicant no longer had a contract of employment with the Organization because he resigned from service in May 2008. Thus, UNIFEM¡¯s 2012 decision to finally record his separation from service did not have any direct legal consequences on him. ;}