�山����

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...

The initial decision to deny the Applicant EGT for the 2021-2022 academic year was modified following management evaluation. The Applicant was granted partial EGT for the 2020-2021 and 2021 2022 academic years, which resulted in a pro-rated recovery of the Applicant’s EGT for the 2020-2021 academic year and the granting of half of his EGT for the 2021 2022 academic year.

Pursuant to staff regulation 3.2(a), staff rule 3.9(g), and sec. 9.1 of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the Applicant is entitled to one round trip for her daughter during each academic year between her educational institution and his...

The Applicant was found suitable for available positions. Indeed, for one job opening, he was one of the eight candidates short-listed and convoked to interview. By shortlisting him, the Administration tacitly acknowledged that he was deemed suitable for the position; per Timothy UNDT/2017/080, as a continuing appointment holder facing termination, the Administration was obliged from that point to consider his candidacy on a preferred, non-competitive basis.

The Tribunal found that the Administration failed in its obligation to make good faith efforts to absorb the Applicant into a new post...

The Applicant lost a significant portion of his annual leave balance because the Administration used that leave to address the period of unlawful separation. This ongoing injury is of sufficient collateral consequence to preclude mootness despite the partial reversal of the direct effects of the contested decision. Thus, even if the Applicant was reinstated, there remained a live controversy between the parties and as such, the application is not moot.

The contested decision in the case at hand is the non-renewal decision. There is no separate litigation of the decision to charge absence to...

The undisputed facts are unambiguous and leave little room for different interpretations. An apology does not invalidate or undo the misconduct. The fact that the Applicant was not made aware of the negative impact of her practice has no relevance for the factual determination. As such, the Administration has established the facts underlying the disciplinary measure in question by preponderance of evidence.

The Applicant using expletives towards her subordinates and widely addressing her colleagues by nicknames in the workplace were compounded by her ignoring personal and professional...

While regrettably there is neither an eyewitness to the physical assault in question nor any security camera that could have captured the assault on video, the complainant provided, under oath, a detailed and coherent account of the physical assault in question, the circumstances leading to it and its aftermath. His account of the physical assault and subsequent events is corroborated by other witnesses’ testimonies, the documentary evidence and/or the Applicant’s contemporaneous behaviour, i.e., his attempt to bring some soft drinks to the complainant a few hours after the physical assault...

The application is denied.

The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal's Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

It is within the discretion of the Applicant’s SRO to make comments on her performance. “[M]aking comments in an ePAS about the need for a staff member to improve performance in certain core values and competencies is an important tool for the managers to carry out their functions in the interest of the Organization and, hence, their willingness to do so need to be supported and boosted”. It represents a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees.

The comments in question do not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal. They are constructive...

In summary, the Tribunal finds that in this recruitment exercise, the proper procedures were followed, the Applicant’s candidacy was given full and fair consideration, the applicable regulations and rules were applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, and the OHCHR High Commissioner properly exercised her discretion in making the selection decision.