The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly dismissed Mr. Salon’s application as not receivable on grounds that he had failed to establish that an appealable administrative decision had been taken by the Organization and that in any event, he had failed to request management evaluation.
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely “experience in leading large teams”, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The UNAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of “lead” is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the UNAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...
The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.
There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...
Accoding to the hiring manager, he concluded that the Applicant id not meet one of the minimum requirements for the position and thus, lawfully not considered further in the selection process. This requirement was "experience in leading large teams", which the hiring manager defined as "supervising at least 10 employees".
The Tribunal found that the process of advertising and setting out the criteria for selection was done lawfully. However, it also found that there was evidence of an unjust process that failed to provide a fair chance to job applicants like the Applicant because it failed to...
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...
UNAT concurred with UNDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB’s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci. Recalling that compensation in the absence of actual injury is without legal basis, UNAT held that UNDT erred in law. However, acceding in part to the cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci, UNAT held that when the disciplinary procedure does not bear out allegations against a staff member that may have been considered during a preliminary investigation, entitlements that may have been lawfully withheld pursuant to administrative instruction ST/AI/2004/3 must be paid in full, including interest. UNAT held that the award...
UNAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. UNAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months’ net base pay. UNAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.
UNAT considered Ms Simmons’ appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons’ claim that UNDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, UNAT found that UNDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons’ omissions and/or actions. UNAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons’ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, UNAT held that UNDT did not...
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held by majority that UNDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate for UNDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the UNDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton’s likely prospects of success. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that Mr Appleton’s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...
