Judge Bravo
The Tribunal noted that the relinquishment of the Applicant’s post was not imposed upon her by the Administration. It occurred at her own initiative and of her free will. It found that the termination decision was lawful and rejected the application. Termination of an FTA: The FTA of a staff member who signed an agreement relinquishing the lien on his/her regular post and, hence, who has no post to return to, can be terminated on the basis of that agreement. The Administration has no duty to make good faith efforts to place that staff member against a suitable post beyond the terms of the...
The Tribunal was satisfied that the relevant rules were followed and found that the Applicant failed to show evidence that the decision was based on extraneous factors. It concluded that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration and rejected the application. Written test: Where an Applicant successfully passed an anonymous written test, but is subsequently eliminated at the stage of the interview, the question of who should have designed and corrected the written test in a selection process is not determinant for the outcome of the selection process vis-à-vis the Applicant. Any...
Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...
The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific categories of decisions: those taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies and...
Since the applications were identical, the Tribunal joined them per employing organization. The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific...
The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-UNAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...
The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant’s complaint to OAIS was time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant’s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in UNFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (“the Policy”), a formal complaint has to be addressed in writing to OAIS...
The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant’s complaints to OAIS were time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant’s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in UNFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (“the Policy”), a formal complaint has to be addressed in writing to OAIS...
The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant’s complaint to OAIS was time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant’s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in UNFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (“the Policy”), a formal complaint has to be addressed in writing to OAIS...
The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable, on the grounds that the Applicant’s complaint to OAIS was time-barred and that the OAIS properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Applicant’s allegations against her colleague were insufficient to fall within the scope of the definition of harassment and to prima facie establish misconduct. Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in UNFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (“the Policy”), a formal complaint has to be addressed to OAIS within six...