����AV

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

One of the eligibility requirements was five years of continuous service with the Secretariat, excluding any service with separately administered funds or programmes. The Respondent asserted that for part of the relevant period the Applicant was employed pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations Secretariat and the United Nations Development Programme, a separately administered programme. The UNDT found that the Applicant was converted by the United Nations to a permanent appointment in November 2010, which meant that the Organization had accepted that he had at...

Staff rule 12/3(b) – exception to staff rules: The Tribunal held that under the unique circumstances of this case, that is, the requests from MINURSO recognizing the Applicant’s suitability for the post and the Mission’s dire operational needs, for the Respondent to have properly complied with staff rule 12.3(b), the Applicant’s existing educational qualifications along with his professional qualifications and language skills should have been considered regardless of whether or not they were equivalent to a high school diploma.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

Receivability - Mr. Wallace as a Legal Officer in MEU had the requisite delegated authority to make an exception to the Staff Rules in suspending the time limits for the Applicant to request for management evaluation as he did in the present case. The Applicant’s case was therefore held in abeyance until 30 March 2011. The Applicant, as a result, had until 30 June 2011 to file her Application which she did on 6 June 2011. Full and fair consideration - All the candidates that appear before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. A candidate challenging the denial of a...

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s request was not properly considered in that irrelevant factors were taken into consideration whereas relevant factors were not. In particular, no proper consideration was given to the individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception. Further, the reasoning supporting the decision was flawed. The UNDT found that no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the granting of this exception would have been prejudicial to other staff. The UNDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD3,000 as compensation for loss of chance of...

The Application was rejected on the merits.

The Tribunal found that filling a vacancy by laterally transferring a staff member holding the same grade and within the department of the vacant post, without undergoing a full-fledged selection procedure under the staff selection system, does not per se violate the applicable legal framework. Lateral transfer under sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3: Sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3 explicitly provides for the possibility of transferring staff within their departments or offices to job openings at the same level without following the procedures laid down in the staff selection system. This provision does not...

There was a valid offer of employment made to the Applicant, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the Applicant acquired the status of an individual entitled to seek redress before the Tribunal. The act of requesting the waiver following the issuance, and acceptance, of the offer of appointment formed part of a continuum of events which should properly have led to the Applicant being appointed to the position she was sought out for. Noting that the decision not to appoint the Applicant would probably not be rescinded, the Tribunal, in the alternative, awarded her 18 months’ net base salary...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has neither submitted a request to the ASG/OHRM for exceptional grant of an ex gratia payment under staff rule 12.3(b) nor has he submitted a Management Evaluation Request in respect to the same. The Applicant has not complied with staff rule 11.2(a). As such, the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae under art. 8.1(c) of its Statute. SPA and ex gratia payments - The legal bases for the grant of SPA are set out in staff rule 3.10 and ST/AI/2003/3. The aforementioned rules do not provide a legal basis for the grant of an ex gratia...