¹ú²úAV

Outcome: The applicant is not entitled to have the note removed simply because no disciplinary proceedings were undertaken in respect of the investigation report. However, the note in its present form is inaccurate and must be removed. Its replacement, if any, must be accurate and first shown to the applicant, who must be given a copy of the investigation report to enable him to place such comment on the file as he wishes, providing it is reasonably connected to the investigation.

The facts alleged as justifying termination could not make the contract void but only voidable. The Administration is barred from arguing that there was no contract because it affirmed the contract when it was in full possession of the relevant facts by proceedings under staff regulation 9.1.Cancellation and effect of staff regulation 9.1: Under the general law the parties are bound by any condition in the contract relating to cancellation, rescission or repudiation. The only mode by which separation can be effected is pursuant to regulation 9.1 or pursuant to disciplinary procedures. These...

Outcome: The Applicant’s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant’s file and pay the Applicant six months’ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

The Initial Reprimand. The provisions of ST/AI/292 and the doctrine of audi alteram partem were not observed in that the Applicant was not afforded an opportunity to see and to comment on the reprimand before it was issued for which reason he had no opportunity to comment on it in advance. The Reinstated Reprimand. The Tribunal identified the following difficulties with the Reinstated Reprimand: (1) as with the Initial Reprimand, the Applicant was not permitted to see and to comment on the Reinstated Reprimand in accordance with ST/AI/292; (2) the rules and regulations of the Organization...

The Tribunal found that ST/AI/292 had been complied with, in particular paragraph 2 which provides that adverse material may not be included in the personnel file unless it has been shown to the staff member concerned and the staff member has been given an opportunity to make comments thereon. The Administration not only can but must place in a staff member’s personnel file all documents related to his/her service, provided the provisions of ST/AI/292 have been complied with.

The Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the established time limit. Authority of the Tribunal to waive the deadlines for management evaluation: The Appeals Tribunal held in several judgments that pursuant to article 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal has no authority to waive the deadline for management evaluation, including where exceptional circumstances may have prevented the staff member from complying with the deadline. Authority of the Secretary-General to waive the...

The Tribunal found that the USG/DESA complied with ST/SGB/2008/5 by closing the case and providing the Applicant with a summary of the Investigation Panel’s findings and conclusions. However the applicable mandatory time limits for assessing the complaint, appointing the panel and submitting the final investigation report were not respected. The Applicant is awarded a compensation in the total amount of USD2,300. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not gather sufficient evidence or erred in reaching its findings and conclusions presented in the report...

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The final decision taken on the placement of the reprimand in the Applicant’s personnel file was on 25 February 2014 when her attempts to have her comments taken into consideration were finally exhausted. The course of action embarked on by the Applicant to have the matter resolved informally before resorting to the formal process was justifiable in the circumstances given the requirements of ST/AI/292.

Receivability - Article 7.4 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure requires that any application seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement must be filed within 90 calendar days of the last day for implementation as specified in the agreement and where dates for the implementation are not stated, the application must be filed within thirty calendar days of the signing of the settlement agreement.An examination of the Settlement Agreement between the parties shows that no date was stipulated for its implementation. Any application challenging it must therefore be brought within 30 days...

UNDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...