51�Թ�

In the instant case, the Respondent showed that three available P-5 posts were identified as suitable to the Applicant’s qualifications and experience and that he was invited to apply for them for consideration. If the Applicant had put a foot in the door by applying to any of them, then the next stage would have been for the Tribunal to examine whether UNFPA selected a non-permanent staff member above the qualified Applicant thus denying the Applicant of the protections afforded him by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13(d). Good faith efforts on both sides means that both parties cooperate to identify...

The failure to re-interview the subject of an investigation to confront him/her with additional gathered evidence constitutes a breach of his/her due process rights: the contested disciplinary decision is unlawful since it was taken based on the evidence and recommendations of the SIU/UNAMID investigation reports issued in January 2013 and December 2013, even though the SIU/UNAMID continued the investigation and gathered additional evidence from two witnesses in January 2015 and April 2015. The new evidence was never brought to the attention of the Applicant or of the decision-maker before...

The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant’s application for the three P-3 posts was not fully and fairly considered, since the Hiring Manager did not personally evaluate her candidacy based on the information included in the PHP and e-PAS reports, while formally endorsing the decision of the CSS/OSU not to shortlist the Applicant. The Applicant’s e-PAS reports contained essential information regarding the Applicant’s fulfilment of the highly desirable requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal concludes that it has no competence to order the Secretary-General to assess the way the...

Receivability What is the contested decision? The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the decision to grant her a permanent appointment, as argued by the Respondent. Rather, the Applicant contested the decision not to “provide her with an effective remedy” after having been granted a permanent appointment with retroactive effect to 30 June 2009, namely not being given employment against the permanent appointment or, in the alternative, not being granted compensation equivalent to the termination indemnity. Does the principle of “res judicata” apply? The Applicant requests to be...

The Applicant’s appointment was not renewed due to the reclassification of her post from G-4 to G-6 level, and there was a legitimate reason for the reclassification, and thus abolishment of the Applicant’s post. The Applicant has not met her burden of proving that the contested decision was biased or was motivated by other improper purposes. There was insufficient evidence that the Administration made a firm commitment or express promise to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. The Applicant having provided no evidence of any harm, there is no basis for an award for moral damages.

The Tribunal found that the post encumbered by the Applicant was abolished due to a restructuring exercise in UNAKRT linked to budgetary restrictions and the implementation of Umoja, which rendered the Applicant’s position redundant. The Tribunal noted that the Organization is not bound to initiate a formal consultation process with a staff member before deciding to abolish his/her post. In any event, consultation is not equivalent to negotiation, and it is not necessary for the Administration to secure consent or agreement of the consulted party. The Tribunal found that the Organization did...

The Tribunal is aware that one thing is a budgetary provision, although assessed as operational, and that another thing is the concrete ed effective availability of the funds to be used to cover staff costs. In this case, however, the Respondent, who bears on this issue the burden to prove the specific and concrete financial situation, gave no evidence about the alleged cash problems or inconsistency of the budget. The decision by the Organization to terminate the Applicant’s continuing appointment is therefore not justified and unlawful. Furthermore, the decision was not preceded by the due...

Considering that the Respondent did not contest the merits of the allegations as set out in the applications, the Tribunal found that the contested decisions, i.e., to remove the Applicant from his position, to place him on SLWFP and not to renew his appointment were unlawful. Therefore, the only legal issue that remained for adjudication before the Tribunal was that of remedies. The Tribunal considered that the decision to remove the Applicant from his position was, in fact, subsumed in the ultimate decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, having found that both decisions...

UNDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant’s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). UNDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

The finding of non-receivability depends to an extent on one’s perception as to the finality of words used in the decision email. There is a degree of uncertainty and the issues raised on the merits are of general interest. Therefore, applying the approach taken by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (“UNAT”) in Haq and Kane 2019-UNAT922 the issues related to the merits of the case will also be determined. The challenged decision was not part of a process with many steps. It was complete in and of itself and was clearly expressed as a termination decision with a specific date. The fact that...