51�Թ�

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of irreparable damage and particular urgency. The application for suspension of action was rejected.

The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to provide any explanation to the Tribunal as to the reasons for filing the present application 25 calendar days after the email of 28 October 2011 and nine working days before the examination. The UNDT found that the urgency in the present matter was created by the Applicant, who did not act timeously in filing the present application with sufficient urgency.

Consultations: “Consultation with the appropriate staff representative bodies” does not mean that for an administrative instruction to enter into force, it must necessarily meet the agreement of the staff representatives.Acquired right: An acquired right is breached only when an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental or essential terms of employment.Irreparable damage: Mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable damage. Harm to professional reputation and career prospects, or harm to health, or sudden loss of...

The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

On 19 October 2011, the Tribunal issued Order No. 129 (NBI/2011) suspending the implementation of the contested decision until 10 November 2011 allowing the Tribunal to allow the filing of the Respondent’s Reply, the hearing held on 3 November 2011 and the determination of the matter. The Applicant was communicated the response from MEU on 27 October 2011 as well as the Secretary-General’s response. The Applicant filed his case on the merits, registered in the Dispute Tribunal’s records as UNDT/NBI/2011/070 and simultaneously filed under article 14 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. The contested decision had not yet been implemented, as the head of the department had simply communicated by phone his selection to the successful candidate and the latter had merely sent an email expressing his “great interest” in the job. The Tribunal found that this did not amount to an official offer by the Administration followed by an unconditional acceptance by the candidate. The Tribunal considered that the impending appointment of the successful candidate conferred urgency to the matter; that the contested decision, if...

The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children’s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...