¹ú²úAV

En ce qui concerne l'annexe D applicable ¨¤ la pr¨¦sente affaire, le tribunal note que dans l'annexe D actuelle (ST / SGB / 2018/1 / Rev.1), il est indiqu¨¦ que ?[F] ou les r¨¦clamations d¨¦pos¨¦es pour les incidents survenus avant de L'entr¨¦e en vigueur des r¨¨gles r¨¦vis¨¦es actuelles, les r¨¨gles pr¨¦c¨¦demment applicables seront appliqu¨¦es ?(voir Art. 6.1 (b)). Selon les propres soumissions factuelles du demandeur, alors que sa demande de r¨¦mun¨¦ration a ¨¦t¨¦ soumise le 29 juin 2018, elle concernait des incidents qui se sont produits quelque part entre 2015 et jusqu'¨¤ ce que son cong¨¦ m¨¦dical commence...

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that ¡°[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied¡± (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant¡¯s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

Le tribunal a trouv¨¦ un certain nombre de demandes du demandeur ¨¤ ne pas ¨ºtre recevables. Le tribunal a constat¨¦ que la principale raison du refus de la demande du demandeur pour prolonger son t¨¦l¨¦travail de temps ¨¦tait que le r?le du demandeur en tant que responsable de la protection de l'enfance avait besoin de pr¨¦sence sur le terrain et que le t¨¦l¨¦travail n'¨¦tait pas appropri¨¦ pour les fonctions de son r?le. Le demandeur n'avait pas d'exemption m¨¦dicale ¨¤ t¨¦l¨¦travailler. Le dossier a montr¨¦ que la raison ¨¦tait vraie et que la requ¨¦rante avait la m¨ºme discr¨¦tion que les autres membres de son...

?valuation des performances: le tribunal doit accorder une d¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation de l'administration de la performance du demandeur, et consid¨¦rant que le demandeur ne conteste principalement pas les faits sous-jacents de la constatation de mauvaises performances, le tribunal constate que la conclusion de mauvaises performances est ¨¦tay¨¦e par des preuves. Normes de performance: Le dossier ne soutient pas l'affirmation du demandeur selon laquelle il a re?u ?trop de t?ches trop rapidement? car les t?ches qui lui ont ¨¦t¨¦ assign¨¦es ¨¦taient conformes ¨¤ ses responsabilit¨¦s professionnelles en...

Dans ce cas, l'administration a initialement d¨¦cid¨¦ que le demandeur ¨¦tait admissible ¨¤ une quantit¨¦ au prorata d'allocation de pension forfaitaire, mais pendant le processus d'¨¦valuation de la gestion, l'administration a trouv¨¦ la d¨¦cision pr¨¦c¨¦dente erron¨¦e et a d¨¦cid¨¦ que le demandeur n'avait en fait droit ¨¤ aucune allocation d'embarquement. Par cons¨¦quent, la d¨¦cision soumise ¨¤ un examen judiciaire dans cette affaire est la d¨¦cision de l¡¯administration de le trouver inadmissible ¨¤ toute allocation d¡¯en pension. Il est clair qu'en vertu du r¨¨glement 3.2 et de l'annexe B aux r¨¨glements et...

Le tribunal est convaincu que les preuves soutiennent l¡¯¨¦valuation par le gestionnaire d¡¯embauche de la candidature du candidat s¨¦lectionn¨¦. Sur la base des preuves, le tribunal constate qu'il ¨¦tait ¨¤ la discr¨¦tion de l'intim¨¦ de s¨¦lectionner le candidat retenu. De plus, le tribunal n'est pas persuad¨¦ que le demandeur a montr¨¦ qu'il avait une chance importante de s¨¦lection sur le candidat s¨¦lectionn¨¦, en l'absence des irr¨¦gularit¨¦s proc¨¦durales qu'il all¨¨gue.

L'affaire a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cid¨¦e par un banc de trois juges. La majorit¨¦ a d¨¦cid¨¦ de rejeter la demande avec un juge dissident. Selon la cr¨¦ation des faits de l'affaire, la majorit¨¦ a conclu que l'intim¨¦ avait justifi¨¦ des preuves claires et convaincantes la base factuelle de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. En ce qui concerne l'inconduite, la majorit¨¦ a soutenu que l'acte de forcer les rapports sexuels, par le requ¨¦rant sur le plaignant - (c'est-¨¤-dire le viol), ¨¦quivalait ¨¤ des abus sexuels sous une forme grave et, en tant que tel, constituait une fausse inconduite prescrite par le r¨¨glement 10.1 du personnel...

Dans le jugement n ¡ã UNDT / 2022/028, le tribunal a rejet¨¦ la demande dans le cas n ¡ã UNT / NY / 2021/023, constatant que le demandeur n'est pas ¨¦ligible pour l'allocation d'embarquement pour son enfant. Dans ce cas, le demandeur conteste essentiellement la m¨ºme d¨¦cision de le trouver inadmissible ¨¤ l'allocation de pension pour son enfant, dont la question a d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦solue dans le jugement n ¡ã UNT / 2022/028. Par cons¨¦quent, en vertu de la doctrine de Res Judicata, le tribunal rejette la pr¨¦sente demande.

Le tribunal conclut les preuves que le requ¨¦rant a comment¨¦ n¨¦gativement les v¨ºtements de V01 lors de sa visite au Comit¨¦ national. Cependant, tout en reconnaissant que les commentaires pourraient avoir ¨¦t¨¦ hors ligne ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'il n'avait aucun r?le de supervision sur le personnel du Comit¨¦ national, le Tribunal ne constate pas que les preuves soutiennent que cette conduite avait une composante sexuelle. Le tribunal est convaincu qu'il existe des preuves claires et convaincantes que le demandeur a compar¨¦ l'?ge de V01 ¨¤ son fils tout en d¨¦clarant qu'il avait essay¨¦ d'¨¦viter de parler aux...

Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ tr¨¨s improbable que, dans l'hypoth¨¨se o¨´ l'engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e du requ¨¦rant n'avait pas d¨¦j¨¤ pris fin le 9 mai 2018, celui-ci aurait ¨¦t¨¦ renouvel¨¦ du 31 ao?t (date d'expiration de son engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e) au 31 d¨¦cembre. 2019 (derni¨¨re date avant la suppression de son poste). Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu¡¯en d¨¦pit des comp¨¦tences et des qualifications du requ¨¦rant, il ¨¦tait tr¨¨s peu probable qu¡¯il ait ¨¦t¨¦ mut¨¦ au poste de directeur des services de gouvernance.

Le requ¨¦rant a re?u l¡¯int¨¦gralit¨¦ du salaire (salaire de base net plus indemnit¨¦ de poste) qu¡¯il...

Performance evaluation: The Tribunal must accord deference to the Administration¡¯s appraisal of the Applicant¡¯s performance, and considering that the Applicant mostly does not dispute the underlying facts of the finding of poor performance, the Tribunal finds that the finding of poor performance is supported by evidence. Performance standards: the record does not support the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was given ¡°too many tasks too fast¡± as the tasks assigned to him were consistent with his job responsibilities as HR Analyst. In addition, the record does not support his argument that the...

The Tribunal found a number of the Applicant's claims to not be receievable. The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the refusal of the Applicant's request to extend her time telecommuting was that the Applicant¡¯s role as a child protection officer needed presence on the ground and that telecommuting was not appropriate for the functions of her role. The Applicant did not have a medical exemption to telecommute. The record showed that the reason was true and that the Applicant was afforded the same discretion as other members of her team. The Tribunal therefore found no indication of...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence supports the Hiring Manager¡¯s evaluation of the selected candidate¡¯s candidacy. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that it was within the Respondent¡¯s discretion to select the successful candidate. Moreover, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that he had a significant chance of selection over the selected candidate, absent any of the procedural irregularities that he alleges.

The case was decided by a bench of three judges. The Majority decided to dismiss the application with one Judge dissenting. On whether the facts of the case were established, the Majority concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Majority concurred that the act of forcing sexual intercourse, by the Applicant on the Complainant-(i.e., rape), amounted to sexual abuse in a grave form and, as such, constituted a serious misconduct prescribed by staff regulation 10.1(b) and staff rule 1.2...

In Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028, the Tribunal rejected the application in Case No. UNDT/NY/2021/023, finding that the Applicant is ineligible for boarding allowance for his child. In this case, the Applicant essentially challenges the same decision to find him ineligible for boarding allowance for his child, the issue of which was already resolved in Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028. Therefore, under the doctrine of res judicata, the Tribunal rejects the present application.

The Tribunal found it most unlikely that¡ªin the hypothesis that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment had not already been terminated on 9 May 2018¡ªit would have been renewed from 31 August (the expiry date of his fixed-term appointment) to 31 December 2019 (the last date before the abolition of his post). The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant¡¯s skills and credentials, it would be most unlikely that he would have been transferred to the post of the Director of Governance Services.

The Applicant was awarded the full salary (net base salary plus post adjustment) he would have obtained...

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration¡¯s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only...

The Tribunal concludes from the evidence that the Applicant commented adversely on V01¡¯s clothing during his visit to the National Committee. However, while acknowledging that the comments may have been out of line given that he had no supervisory role over the staff in the National Committee, the Tribunal does not find that evidence supports that this conduct had a sexual component. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant compared V01¡¯s age to his son while stating that he tried to avoid speaking to older women. The Tribunal is also satisfied...

Quelle que soit la fa?on dont le demandeur peut avoir l'intention de d¨¦finir la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, il ressort clairement de la demande et de ses documents de support, ainsi que de la demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion, que les ¨¦v¨¦nements en litige datent de mars et avril 2019. Le demandeur donc rat¨¦ la date limite de 60 jours pour demander une ¨¦valuation de la gestion de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. La demande non ¨¤ recevoir ratione materiae.

Le tribunal a accord¨¦ que la demande fait partie et a attribu¨¦ au demandeur 4 000 USD en compensation pour violations proc¨¦durales.