Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Applicant withdrew her application and therefore UNDT closed the proceedings.

Outcome: The respondent is to pay interest from the date the payment of the relocation grant became due, namely 4 May 2008, and until payment at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

Compensation under Appendix D as opposed to liability for a breach of terms of appointment/contractual obligations: Appendix D to the Staff Rules sets a regime of objective responsibility in the event of death, injury or illness attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the United Nations, by which the Organization is to afford compensation regardless of whether it bears any fault in the matter. Where the compensation claimed by a staff member is compensation that relates to a violation of one of the terms of the staff member’s employment or is contractual in nature...

A review of other similar cases revealed that only one other staff member was separated for illegal possession/use of drugs, and that was a far more serious case. The sanction in the present case was disproportionate in the light of the comparators. UNDT endorsed Sow. Equality of treatment in the workplace is a core principle which must be applied by the Secretary-General when imposing disciplinary sanctions.

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. Contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the application was required to be submitted by 9 November 2014 and not by 9 October 2014, which would have afforded the Applicant only 60 calendar days instead of the 90 days stipulated in staff rule 11.4(a).

Administration’s discretion in constituting interview panels for temporary appointments - It is within the discretion of the Administration as to how the interview panel for a temporary position is constituted as long as the composition of the said panel is consistent with the requirements of ST/AI/201/4/Rev. 1.

The Tribunal found that the decision to separate the Applicant for abandonment of post was not unlawful because: the Applicant was absent from duty he did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for failure to report to work the Administration followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal laws of the Organization and the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the impropriety that he alleged.

The Tribunal held that the managers concerned acted in accordance with the obligations placed on them by sections 9 and 10 of ST/AI/400. Given the fact that the Applicant absented himself from work in Sector East without proper authorization and failed to heed the advice and requests sent to him, the Organization did not act unlawfully in taking steps to place him on SLWOP. Moreover, it was lawful for the Organization to take steps to recover payments made in advance in respect of education grant and travel in circumstances where such advances were not utilised for the purpose for which they...

The Tribunal carefully examined all the correspondence between the parties and was not persuaded by the Respondent’s argument that the contested administrative decision was conclusively made and communicated to the Applicant on 28 June 2016. The Tribunal was of the view that the correspondence between the parties did not bear out the said argument and found that the Respondent had not apprised himself of all relevant facts on 28 June 2016 when he rejected the claim for an education grant and reimbursement of mother tongue tuition. In the prevailing circumstances, the Tribunal held that the...

The impugned decision of 21 April 2015 clearly: a) emanated from the Administration and b) produced direct legal consequences for the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s appointment. As such, the decision was capable of being subject to management evaluation as well as capable of being reviewed by the UNDT. The Applicant had until 90 days from 8 June 2015 to file an application before UNDT. The Applicant did not do so until 1 March 2016. The application is, therefore, late by almost six months. The Applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would warrant waiving the time...