Ãå±±½ûµØ

Reason to believe: that a staff member has engaged in unsatisfactory conduct is buttressed by a fact-finding, which in turn creates the requirement to investigate.Fact-Finding: fact-finding process is the collection and analysis of information to determine the veracity of an allegation against a staff member. It is a prerequisite for an investigation and cannot replace an investigation. As such cannot be used as the basis for imposing a disciplinary measure. Investigation: A disciplinary process can only be initiated based on proper official investigation being conducted under ST/AI/371.

Non-renewal The Chief Administrative Officer’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was arbitrarily taken. Downsizing In cases of downsizing, there is generally some established criteria put in place to ensure accountability and transparency of the process. In the present case, there was no evidence of such criteria and the Tribunal found that the Applicant was deliberately reassigned to another unit in order to make it possible for the downsizing axe to fall on him. Expectancy of renewal Applicant had a legitimate expectancy of renewal of contract considering that the Personnel...

While the delay in the investigation process in this case constituted a breach of the requirements of promptness in ST/SGB/2005/8, the investigation of the Applicant’s complaint of prohibited conduct was ongoing as opposed to making no progress at all. The Respondent’s submission provided the Applicant with a full explanation of the reasons for the delays, which UNDT held was a sufficient remedy in all the circumstances. Moral Damages - Not every breach will give rise to an award of moral damages as a result of a breach of the procedural due process entitlements and that other entitlement to...

The ST/SGB/2008/5 requirement for the administration to act promptly on complaints of prohibited activity was not observed in the case of the Applicant’s complaint. UNDT required more information on the present state of the process and held that this case was suitable to remand for institution or correction of the required procedure. UNDT suspended the proceedings and orderd the Secretary-General to advise UNDT of the present position of the investivgation into the Applicant’s complaint and whether he concurs with the remand of the case for institution and correction of the procedure under ST...

The UNDT decided to join both cases and following a review of the procedure followed, found both decisions to be illegal. It ordered the rescission of both decisions and that a new decision be taken on the Applicant’s complaint. It also considered that the irregularities committed resulted in undue delay in the handling of the complaint, which caused the Applicant moral harm warranting compensation of 8,000 Swiss francs.

Performance Ãå±±½ûµØ The Tribunal finds that this Ãå±±½ûµØ was not reflected in the Applicant’s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant’s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Ãå±±½ûµØ issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Ãå±±½ûµØ, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant’s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rejected it.

Taking into consideration the Respondent’s response that the internal processes had not yet reached finality, the Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter until such time as all applicable and relevant procedures had been concluded. Consequently, the application was deemed premature and dismissed as irreceivable.

The fact-finding panel established that the allegations were well founded and the conduct in question amounted to possible misconduct. In the circumstances, the mandatory language of section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 required a referral to the ASG/OHRM for disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures. Failure to make such a referral on the part of the Head of Mission was an error of procedure which denied the Applicant his contractual right to be afforded the benefit and protection against prohibited conduct in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. The Administration...

The Tribunal rejected the application on the merits.