Search

Demotion: A demotion is not a purely financial disciplinary measure, unlike a fine or loss of steps. It also carries a stigma and a loss of responsibilities. Discretion of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters: Due deference must be shown to the Secretary-General’s choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure. Establishment of charges: If the disciplinary measure is justified with respect to the established facts in relation to a certain charge, it is not necessary to determine whether additional charges are also established. Violation of due process rights and compensation: Not...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish a factual basis for her alleged expectation that her contract would be renewed, that she would be given a regularized position, or that she would be placed on special leave without pay at the expiry of her contract. The UNDT therefore found that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s temporary appointment was not unlawful.

Organization of work and discretion of the Secretary-General: The Secretary-General has wide discretion in the organization of work. It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own views to that of the Secretary-General on how to organize work and meet operational needs. Decisions in this sphere may be set aside only on limited grounds, for example if the competent authorities breached procedural rules, or if discretion was exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or illegal manner.Eligibility for consideration for conversion to permanent appointment: Pursuant to provisional staff Rules13.4 (b)...

The Applicant contends that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was based on irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism and that it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of ST/AI/2010/5, however, he failed to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged made the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract unlawful. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the first requirement of a suspension of action application, which is to show the prima facie unlawfulness of the contested decision.

Grounds for non-renewal: No provision requires the Administration to give the reasons for a non-renewal decision. However, when a staff member contests the non-renewal of his or her contract before the Tribunal, the Organization must provide the reasons for this decision and the staff member has the right to contest the legality of the same.Discretionary power and scope of judicial review: The Administration has discretion to organize its services and thus to finance or not a programme. It is not for the Tribunal to assess the correctness of this kind of decisions.Burden of proof of extraneous...

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The UNDT ordered: (i) USD50,000 for the breach of the Applicant’s right to be properly considered for an appointment beyond 31 December 2005 and resultant harm; (ii) USD20,000 for anxiety and emotional distress. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to give full, fair, and proper consideration to the Applicant’s candidacy, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Bureau of the COP. The UNDT found that had the Respondent followed proper procedure and afforded proper consideration, the Applicant stood a significantly high chance of receiving an...

In this case, the Applicant filed an application for revision of the judgment out of time. A decisive or material fact is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. That fact must be of significant weight such that its application to the case should lead to a revision of the judgment.The Applicant was investigated and later summarily dismissed by UNHCR on allegations of corruption in refugee processing in the Nairobi office of UNHCR. The Applicant was also arrested by the Kenyan Police and charged in a Kenyan Court with various criminal offences, however, the Applicant was...

The Tribunal found that the Executive Secretary of ECA, who made the decision to fill the post from the roster, was not acting unlawfully in so doing, since ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system) permitted this.

Decision affecting the applicant’s rights: Since staff members have the right to apply to other positions under the Staff Regulations and Rules, they are entitled to contest a non-selection decision and a fortiori a decision imposing an additional condition for appointment after having been selected. Such a decision does affect the staff member’s rights and is thus open to appeal.Lack of legal basis for the condition to renounce to permanent resident status: The General Assembly never endorsed the recommendations to approve the establishment of the condition that staff members must relinquish...

An appeal to an internal review panel established for such purpose did not amount to a written request for management evaluation addressed to the Secretary-General.

The UNDT found that the Panel on Discrimination and other Grievances, which was the body mandated to investigate the Applicant’s complaint, failed to act expeditiously in bringing the Applicant’s case to conclusion, finish its investigation, and issue its final report, as required by ST/AI/308/Rev.1. The UNDT found that the Organization failed to properly address the Applicant’s complaint of harassment and discrimination and was thus in breach of the Applicant’s contract. The UNDT found that the Applicant did not prove that any actual economic loss warranting compensation was caused to him...

A respondent who neglects to take part in the proceedings by not filing a reply within 30 days of receipt of the application may be readmitted by leave of the Tribunal only. The respondent in such a case is solely and effectively excluded by his own negligence to file a reply in time. He is not excluded by the Tribunal but by the operation of law. By his preposterous claim that the Registrar and the Judge owed him a duty to remind him of his obligations to his client, the Respondent’s Counsel, sought, in the Tribunal’s view, to provide an excuse for his own incompetence and lack of diligence...

The Tribunal did not find any evidence of sexual exploitation and abuse as defined by the SGB. The Tribunal considered the definition of pornography and on viewing the images concluded that they were obscene, hardcore pornography. In view of the Applicant’s admissions and the quantity of materials on his official computer, the misconduct charge in that respect was well founded. The Applicant’s submission that the evidence was fruit of the poison tree and therefore inadmissible was rejected on the basis that the illegally obtained evidence (a CD) merely triggered the investigation but did not...

Summary Judgment The Tribunal noted that Summary Judgment can only be entered in a case where the material facts are not in dispute and a party to case is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further that for a party to seek Summary Judgment, it has to be on the merits of the case and such a party should have pleaded facts in relation to the case. The Respondent had not pleaded any material facts and had also not joined issues with the Applicant on the merits of the case. Receivability In determining the receivability of the Application, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant’s access to...

The Tribunal found that the acts complained of amounted to misconduct under Staff Regulation 1.2 and Staff Rule 301.3(d) as conduct unbecoming of an international civil servant and as sexual harassment in connection with work. A written censure was a lenient sanction in the circumstances. Sexual harassment in connection with work, as prohibited by Staff Rule 301.3(d), includes a situation where outside the workplace a staff member perpetrated an act of sexual harassment upon another staff member.

The Tribunal examined whether the two-year limitation for the recovery of the overpayment as stated in ST/AI/2009/1 applied to the case at hand. While it was undisputed that the overpayment resulted from an error on the part of the Organization, the Tribunal found that the Applicant could not seriously claim that she was unaware or that she could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the overpayment, and it therefore concluded that the two- year limitation could not apply to her.

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of irreparable damage and particular urgency. The application for suspension of action was rejected.

The Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable because the contested decision is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 11.2(b) and accordingly the time limits applicable under art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute should have been complied with. It clearly follows from staff rule 11.2(b) that the exemption from the requirement to request the management evaluation of a disciplinary measure only applies to disciplinary measures imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process.

The Tribunal observes that the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...

The Tribunal finds that the circumstances appertaining at the time of recruitment of the Applicant created a legal expectancy of renewal. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was arrived at in breach of her rights to due process. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the non-renewal of the contract subject to the duty to mitigate.