Staff Regulations

  • 13.1(b)(i)
  • Annex I
  • Annex II
  • Annex III
  • Annex IV
  • Appendix D
  • Provisional Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 1
  • Regulation 1.1
  • Regulation 1.1(a)
  • Regulation 1.1(b)
  • Regulation 1.1(d)
  • Regulation 1.1(e)
  • Regulation 1.1(f)
  • Regulation 1.2
  • Regulation 1.2(a)
  • Regulation 1.2(b)
  • Regulation 1.2(c)
  • Regulation 1.2(e)
  • Regulation 1.2(f)
  • Regulation 1.2(g)
  • Regulation 1.2(h)
  • Regulation 1.2(i)
  • Regulation 1.2(l)
  • Regulation 1.2(m)
  • Regulation 1.2(o)
  • Regulation 1.2(p)
  • Regulation 1.2(q)
  • Regulation 1.2(r)
  • Regulation 1.2(t)
  • Regulation 1.3
  • Regulation 1.3(a)
  • Regulation 10.1
  • Regulation 10.1(a)
  • Regulation 10.1(b)
  • Regulation 10.1a)
  • Regulation 10.2
  • Regulation 11.1
  • Regulation 11.1(a)
  • Regulation 11.2
  • Regulation 11.2(a)
  • Regulation 11.2(b)
  • Regulation 11.4
  • Regulation 12.1
  • Regulation 2.1
  • Regulation 3
  • Regulation 3.1
  • Regulation 3.2
  • Regulation 3.2(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)(i)
  • Regulation 3.5
  • Regulation 4.1
  • Regulation 4.13
  • Regulation 4.13(c)
  • Regulation 4.14(b)
  • Regulation 4.2
  • Regulation 4.3
  • Regulation 4.4
  • Regulation 4.5
  • Regulation 4.5(b)
  • Regulation 4.5(c)
  • Regulation 4.5(d)
  • Regulation 4.7(c)
  • Regulation 5.2
  • Regulation 5.3
  • Regulation 6.1
  • Regulation 6.2
  • Regulation 8
  • Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 8.2
  • Regulation 9.1
  • Regulation 9.1(a)
  • Regulation 9.1(b)
  • Regulation 9.2
  • Regulation 9.3
  • Regulation 9.3(a)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(i)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(ii)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(v)
  • Regulation 9.3(b)
  • Regulation 9.3(c)
  • Regulation 9.4
  • Regulation 9.5
  • Regulation 9.6
  • Regulation 9.6(b)
  • Regulation 9.6(c)
  • Regulation 9.6(e)
  • Regulation 9.7
  • Regulation IV
  • Regulation X
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 729

    The Tribunal recalled that the regulatory framework on termination for facts anterior does not limit it to cases where there has been a proven prior factual finding of misconduct or a conviction of crime. What is required is that there must be a fact anterior that detracts from the suitability of the prospective recruit due to concerns of efficiency, competence, and integrity. The fact must be of so serious a nature that it would have precluded the staff member’s appointment if it had been disclosed to the Organization during the recruitment process.

    In the instant case, the Tribunal...

    The Tribunal found that the Respondent had provided no rule or precedent based contextual explanation to support his position. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had not provided any rational explanation for depriving the Applicant of the entitlements to increments afforded under GS Salary Scale 120b to those similarly circumstanced. Accordingly, the Tribunal:

    a. Decided to rescind the contested decision;

    b. Directed that the Applicant be recognised as having been in continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat from 3 May 1994 and, effective 22 February 2022...

    The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.

    In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:

    a.     Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;

    b.     Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and

    c.     Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said...

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

    The UNAT was of the view that, as the UNDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

    The UNAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

    The record...

    Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC’s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her. 

    Whereas the Applicant’s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...

    ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) “a list of candidates” that was “endorsed by a central review body” or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that “[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction”. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant’s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by UNICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for UNICEF to end...

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. The contested decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in matters of staff selection. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Applicant’s view that her involvement with “contentious” discussions with DGACM management as a Staff Union representative has any bearing on the interview process for the contested position.

    The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself. 

    The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

    The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration’s discretionary authority.  The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the UNDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

    The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment...