Judge Izuako
The Tribunal held that the presence of bad faith in some of the Respondent’s actions concerning the Applicant stood out in bold relief. There was no doubt that the bad blood between the Applicant and her immediate supervisor created a ripple effect and alienated her from the Chief of ICTS. The testimony on why and how the recruitment process for VA 421846 had to be overhauled clearly reflected a blatant manipulation of the selection process set out in ST/AI/2006/3; a subversion and clear breach of United Nations Staff Rules. The Applicant did not make out a case with regard to her allegations...
The application was withdrawn by the applicant.
The Respondent having conceded that his summary dismissal of the Applicant was a flawed decision, the only issue before the Tribunal was the matter of compensation and other entitlements due to the Applicant. The payment of a sum equivalent to two years net base salary to the Applicant in the circumstances was sufficient compensation for non-reinstatement. The Tribunal rejected the relief sought for an international posting in lieu of reinstatement or the payment of the equivalent of twenty-one years salary. The payment of a sum equivalent to six months salary to the Applicant was sufficient...
This Application is not receivable and is additionally frivolous and vexatious.
The UNECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The UNECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with UN international legal instruments on human rights. The UNECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant’s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the UNECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...
In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of “exceptional” in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant did not abide by the time limits for filing his application with the JAB and subsequently, in his appeal against the JAB’s findings, he also failed to abide by the time limits for filing his application...
In UNDT Judgment No. 037, Sethia (2010), the Tribunal set out the applicable law in determining whether the time limits imposed by the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal will be waived. In the present case, having considered the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal finds that they do not satisfy the requirement of “exceptional” in Article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal. The applicant’s physical presence was not required in the U.S. for her to file her Application.
An interview panel set up by a Programme Manager is the Programme Manager’s agent and as the principal, the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel in so far as the panel does not exceed its mandate. When a head of department having a final say in the making of a selection decision influences the outcome of an interview process and report, the resultant selection process has been unduly interfered with and its integrity compromised. It does not lie within the discretionary authority or prerogative of the Administration to evaluate both 30-day and 60 day...
An agency relationship exists between an interview panel and a Programme Manager or Program Case Officer, such that the Programme Manager is bound by the evaluation and recommendations of the panel provided that it acts within its terms of reference. The Administration had no prerogative or power to cancel the vacancy announcement for the reasons relied upon.
The Administration’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment beyond September 30 2009 was not informed by improper motive, arbitrariness or other extraneous factors. The Applicant, in merely settling into his reassignment to clerical duties in JRAU, not only deluded himself as to the security of his employment with the ICTR but was utterly unreasonable and careless regarding his own career prospects and must bear the blame for the fall-outs of his reassignment. The ICTR Administration made sufficient effort in the spirit of the Performance Appraisal System to improve the...
The Tribunal rescinds the decision to terminate the Applicant’s employment and Orders: (i) the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant to a position whose duties she is able to carry out given the impairment she suffers; (ii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant’s lost earnings from the date of termination of her fixed-term appointment to the date of her reinstatement with interest at 8% per month for the said period; (iii) Orders that the Applicant be paid her entitlement to for the period from 28 March 2007 to 31 July 2007 during which period she was entitled to special sick leave...
The Tribunal rescinds the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant and Orders: the reinstatement of the Applicant; that the Applicant be paid her salaries and entitlements from the date of her summary dismissal to the date of this judgment with interest at 8%; that the Applicant be compensated for the breach of her right to due process at the rate of two months net base salary; that compensation be fixed, should the Secretary-General decide in the interest of the Administration not to perform the obligation to reinstate the Applicant, at two years’ net base salary at the rate in effect on...
The Applicant’s fixed term-appointment came to an end as a result of her service-incurred injury. The Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was in fact terminated and it is disingenuous for the Respondent to argue that “it was allowed to run until the end of the term and was not renewed on medical grounds.” The administrative decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment due to the Applicant’s inability to resume her professional activities with ICTR in Arusha was informed by improper motive. The applicable procedural rules that should have been followed by the Respondent in this...
Having considered the parties’ submissions on the matter of the appropriate relief for the Applicant, the Tribunal: (i) Orders rescission of the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant; (ii) Orders the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant; (iii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant’s lost earnings from the date of his summary dismissal to the date of his reinstatement with interest at 8% less US$ 2,600 per month for the said period; (iv) Orders that the Applicant be served a written reprimand to be filed in his Official Status File for the reasons cited at paragraph 8.1 (iii)...
Assignment grant: Rule 107.20 clearly envisages a situation in which a newly recruited staff member from an area “within commuting distance of the duty station” would be entitled to an assignment grant where he had been “settled” in the duty station perhaps by a former employer who due to the new recruitment would no longer take responsibility for such things as his accommodation. He would be given the assignment grant to “resettle” himself, as it were. By the same token, a newly recruited staff member who had previously worked for the Organisation for a period of time as a consultant and most...
The more serious an allegation against a staff member and attendant sanction, the higher the degree of proof required. Establishing criminal liability in investigations and judicial proceedings even in the context of a civil matter such as this must necessarily require that a standard higher than the ordinary one of a balance of probabilities must be attained. The OIOS Investigations Manual requires that investigators approach matters with an “open mind” and emphasises that their task is to “establish facts” and draw “reasonable conclusions” from those facts. It is a “dispassionate...
The Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence tendered before it in respect of the Applicant’s chronic absences. The Tribunal is not convinced that the reasons proffered by the Applicant to explain his unauthorized absences were beyond his control. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant was given ample opportunity to address this performance shortcoming. The Tribunal is satisfied, in consideration of the requirements of section 8.3 of ST/AI/2002/3, that the ICTR Administration had taken steps to rectify the situation in respect of the Applicant’s chronic absenteeism.
The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.
The Tribunal is entitled to examine the entire case before it. In other words, the Tribunal may consider not only the administrative decision of the Secretary-General imposing disciplinary measures but also examine the material placed before him on which he bases his decision in addition to other facts relevant to the said material. The rush by the investigators to produce a prejudiced report dripping with innuendos, riddled with ridiculous findings and which completely and unjustly tars the Applicant with a brush of criminality must be loudly condemned by this Tribunal.