ST/SGB/2002/1

  • SGB/2008/5
  • ST/SGB/172
  • ST/SGB/198
  • ST/SGB/1991/1
  • ST/SGB/1994/4
  • ST/SGB/1997/1
  • ST/SGB/1997/2
  • ST/SGB/1997/5
  • ST/SGB/1999/15
  • ST/SGB/1999/4
  • ST/SGB/1999/5
  • ST/SGB/2000/15
  • ST/SGB/2000/8
  • ST/SGB/2001/1
  • ST/SGB/2001/8
  • ST/SGB/2001/9
  • ST/SGB/2002/1
  • ST/SGB/2002/12
  • ST/SGB/2002/13
  • ST/SGB/2002/6
  • ST/SGB/2002/7
  • ST/SGB/2002/9
  • ST/SGB/2003/13
  • ST/SGB/2003/19
  • ST/SGB/2003/4
  • ST/SGB/2003/7
  • ST/SGB/2004/13
  • ST/SGB/2004/13/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2004/15
  • ST/SGB/2004/16
  • ST/SGB/2004/4
  • ST/SGB/2004/6
  • ST/SGB/2004/9
  • ST/SGB/2005/1
  • ST/SGB/2005/20
  • ST/SGB/2005/21
  • ST/SGB/2005/22
  • ST/SGB/2005/4
  • ST/SGB/2005/7
  • ST/SGB/2005/8
  • ST/SGB/2006/6
  • ST/SGB/2006/9
  • ST/SGB/2007/11
  • ST/SGB/2007/4
  • ST/SGB/2007/6
  • ST/SGB/2007/9
  • ST/SGB/2008/13
  • ST/SGB/2008/4
  • ST/SGB/2008/5
  • ST/SGB/2009/1
  • ST/SGB/2009/10
  • ST/SGB/2009/11
  • ST/SGB/2009/2
  • ST/SGB/2009/3
  • ST/SGB/2009/4
  • ST/SGB/2009/6
  • ST/SGB/2009/7
  • ST/SGB/2009/9
  • ST/SGB/2010/2
  • ST/SGB/2010/3
  • ST/SGB/2010/6
  • ST/SGB/2010/9
  • ST/SGB/2011/1
  • ST/SGB/2011/10
  • ST/SGB/2011/4
  • ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2011/7
  • ST/SGB/2011/9
  • ST/SGB/2012/1
  • ST/SGB/2013/1
  • ST/SGB/2013/3
  • ST/SGB/2013/4
  • ST/SGB/2014/1
  • ST/SGB/2014/2
  • ST/SGB/2014/3
  • ST/SGB/2015/1
  • ST/SGB/2015/3
  • ST/SGB/2016/1
  • ST/SGB/2016/7
  • ST/SGB/2016/9
  • ST/SGB/2017/1
  • ST/SGB/2017/2
  • ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2018/1
  • ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.2: Appendix B
  • ST/SGB/2019/10
  • ST/SGB/2019/2
  • ST/SGB/2019/3
  • ST/SGB/2019/8
  • ST/SGB/212
  • ST/SGB/230
  • ST/SGB/237
  • ST/SGB/253
  • ST/SGB/273
  • ST/SGB/274
  • ST/SGB/277
  • ST/SGB/280
  • ST/SGB/371
  • ST/SGB/413
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/1/Rev. 7/Amend. 3
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/1/Rev.8
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D/Rev. l/Amend. 1
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB2003/13
  • ST/SGB2008/5
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 11

    i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

    The main issue was whether time taken off during part of the workday should be counted towards the “scheduled workday” and actual work (“hours of work”) requirements when calculating compensatory time off or additional payment for overtime. UNDT found that time spent on annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off is not included in the actual work time, but is counted towards the scheduled workday. UNDT found that DGACM’s application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules was correct and that the Applicants failed to explain how the allegedly unlawful amendments to DGACM’s policy and...

    The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae as Defence Counsel at the ICTR who have a particular status, which is defined by the internal rules of the ICTR and the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda dated 24 September 1996.

    Certification of sick leave: If some staff members as a matter of practice communicated directly with the MSD rather than through their mission, such practice does not detract from or modify written legislation.Recognised regional medical centres: A country in serious political, economic and security situation was unlikely to be the place to seek adequate medical treatment for an ailment recognised by the organization as a condition for medical evacuation. Recovery of overpayment: The United Nations being a humanitarian organization and in providing humanitarian assistance worldwide, needs to...

    The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...

    An “effective remedy” under ST/SGB/2008/5: The Tribunal concluded that the Administration is obliged to provide an effective remedy where a complaint of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5 is substantiated. The breadth of possible remedies that may be granted includes, but is not limited to, monetary compensation, rescission and injunctive or protective measures.

    The UNDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration’s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent’s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

    The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Hearings in disciplinary matters: The Tribunal held that it is the duty of the Judge to decide whether the nature of the case is such that a hearing may be dispensed with. The Judge should consider the following factors: (i) the issues raised and their complexity; (ii) the availability and relevance of witnesses; (iii) the stand of the Applicant and that of Respondent; and (iv) the legal issues involved...

    The Tribunal concluded that the facts on which the sanction was based were established, that the established facts constituted misconduct and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence. Conflict of interest: The Tribunal held that the fact that the Applicant sought to obtain a remunerated contract for his company to undertake the construction of stands rather than advise the organizers to seek an independent contractor demonstrated the existence of a real conflict of interest between his position as the CEO of a private company and his position as a staff member. Even though BINUB was...

    Receivability: The part of the application regarding the decision identified under “g) the possibility of providing a negative reference about [the Applicant] to OLA where [she has] been interviewed and considered for a shortterm position of six months” is to be rejected as not receivable since a request for management evaluation was not filed timely. Merits: The contested decision: The Applicant’s fixed-term contract was terminated following the abolishment of her post due to a lack of funds and therefore subject to availability of suitable posts, the Applicant had the right (“shall”) to be...