�山����

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant’s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not dispute the fact that he did not request management evaluation within the 60-day statutory period of staff rule 11.2(c). He did not dispute the fact that while the 60-day period commenced on 25 January 2021, he mailed his request for management evaluation on 16 April 2021, more than three weeks after the expiration of the statutory deadline.

Accordingly, since the Applicant did not seek management evaluation in a timely manner, his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

AAF appealed.

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The UNAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member’s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the UNDT.  As the Secretary-General had...

At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant’s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant’s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.

In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...

On the issue of illegality, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had been removed from his official functions, without case or proper justification, and had been forced to re-apply for his own previous functions.  These decisions were taken without reference to any failings of the Applicant, misconduct, indication that he has not successfully performed his functions in the past, or indication that he would not be able to perform his functions in the future.

On the issue of damages, the Tribunal found that although the Applicant kept on holding a continuing appointment at the D-1 level, he...

The Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within UNIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant’s post was established and funded and—by a subsequent exclusion—also showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal’s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini UNDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of �山����Women’s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (“G-3”). The Respondent...

Based on the facts as presented in the application, the Tribunal determined two issues; (i) whether the Applicant was forced to retire, and (ii) whether the decision not to renew her FTA beyond 30 June 2021 was lawful. On issue one, the Tribunal held that based on the separation notice given to the Applicant dated 18 May 2021, read together with the Applicant’s letter of appointment and the evidence produced by the MONUSCO Chief of Human Resources during the hearing, there is no doubt that hers was a case of non-renewal of appointment. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant was not forced...