Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal concludes that it was unreasonable and wrong to have withdrawn the offer of the FS-5 position. The matter is made worse as the offer was withdrawn after a long period of protracted exchange of correspondence between the Applicant and the Respondent.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: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant’s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS UNON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS UNON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...

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...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten UNDT/2011/094. The UNDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87–88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal’s order in para. 87 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...

The Tribunal found the Applicant's reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General's discretion and dismissed the application. Reassignment of the Applicant: The Tribunal found that the relocation of the Applicant to Kuwait was prompted by administrative and humanitarian reasons based on space constraints in UNAMI in order to accommodate more humanitarian staff who were dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Secretary-General's exercise of discretion was not tainted by any improper motives. Payment of DSA, hardship and mobility...

Receivability ratione personae – Applying UNAT’s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant’s status as a former staff member.

Receivability ratione personae – Applying UNAT’s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the United Nations and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.

Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU’s writing in the MEU’s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant’s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.