Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his right to participate as a candidate for leadership in the UNSU through a free and fair election process and his right to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought “an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 UNSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant’s contention that the election results are not...

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his rights to free and fair elections and to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought “an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 UNSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant’s contention that the election results are not safe, then the Applicant respectfully requests the Dispute Tribunal to order new...

The UNDT rejected the application. Scope of judicial control: In appointment and promotion matters the Tribunal's role is limited to examining whether the Applicant’s candidature was given full and fair consideration, whether the decision was taken without any bias against the Applicant, whether proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant material was taken into account. Elements prior to the selection process—such as a restructuring exercise, the transfer of the selected candidate to a given post—are normally not under consideration. Administration’s discretion to define the...

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-UNAT-457 and Nartey 2015-UNAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.

The UNDT found that the facts in this case have not been established to the required standard, that is, the alleged misconduct has not been established by clear and convincing evidence. The Respondent’s case was based on inconclusive evidence linked together by certain inferences and assumptions, without other possible explanations having been given due weight and consideration. As the facts have not been established, the Applicant’s actions cannot be classified as misconduct and no disciplinary measures should have been applied to the Applicant. The UNDT found that this case was not marred by...

The Tribunal found established that the Hiring Manager had a certain bias against candidates who, like the Applicant, were already working at the Division when she joined it as its Director. However, this bias did not crystallise so as to have had an impact on the Applicant’s candidature as all candidates’ tests were rated on an anonymity basis by four panel members. The Administration made a minimal showing that the procedure had been proper by following a protocol designed to ensure the candidates’ anonymity until after the written test was graded and, hence, the burden of proving that the...

The UNDT remanded the Applicant’s request to the Secretary-General for consideration. The UNDT directed that, within one month of the date of this judgment, the Applicant shall submit any further documentation to the MSD New York that he wishes to be taken into consideration. The UNDT further ordered that, within 90 calendar days of the date of this Judgment, the Respondent, through a properly designated office, shall render a decision on the Applicant’s request.

The UNDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...

The sanction was based on a finding that the Applicant had engaged in misconduct when he left a hand-held radio and an MP5 9 mm submachine gun with two magazines and approximately 60 rounds of ammunition UNATtended in a Ãå±±½ûµØvehicle that he had been operating, resulting in these items being stolen when an unknown person or persons broke into that vehicle while the Applicant waited several minutes in a restaurant for a take-out meal. The UNDT Tribunal found that the imposed sanction was not manifestly unreasonable, unnecessarily harsh, obviously absurd or flagrantly arbitrary. It was within the...

The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU’s writing in the MEU’s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant’s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.