In plain English, the term “net base salaryâ€, does not have any meaning on its own, and no authoritative definition is found in the relevant legal framework or the employment contract. The purpose of post adjustment is to ensure equity in purchasing power of staff members across duty stations. Net base salary represents the minimum, or floor remuneration payable, is defined as gross base salary minus staff assessment, and does not include post adjustment.
The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel was properly constituted. The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel’s review of the evidence complied with the applicable norms. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s medical condition was not an excuse for his reported poor performance. The Tribunal found that because the Applicant’s report of abuse of authority against his supervisor was only filed after the performance appraisal was completed, it had no bearing on the appraisal.
Even though the relevant legal framework provides no guidance on the procedure to be followed for a transfer decision, the general principle of good faith and fair dealings dictates that a staff member should typically—and at a minimum—be consulted about such transfer before the final decision is made and priorly be provided with a genuine opportunity to comment thereon --As a matter of good faith and fair dealings, an administrative decision that significantly alters the terms and conditions of a staff member’s employment should be notified to this person in a formal written decision --It is...
The past practice of the Organization in cases involving sexual harassment shows that disciplinary measures have been imposed at the strictest end of the spectrum, namely, separation from service or dismissal in accordance with staff rule 10.2(a), which has been affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in various judgments
The Tribunal found that Administration properly calculated the Applicant’s sick leave entitlements and that the procedure to terminate her appointment for health reasons was properly followed. The Tribunal found that as the Applicant had been “re-employed†on the fixed-term contract, staff rule 4.17 prevented the Applicant from claiming that she had completed more than three years of continuous service based on her previous service under the temporary appointment. Therefore, the Applicant’s sick leave entitlement of three months on full salary and three months on half salary was calculated...
The Tribunal found that there was a preponderance of the evidence that the Applicant created a hostile work environment and that she unlawfully interfered with recruitment process for P-2 TJO. The Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant’s actions, as established by the facts, were abuse of the Applicant’s authority as Director at the D-2 level and constitute misconduct under the above-mentioned legal framework. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Administration’s finding that the Applicant...
When the Applicant sought management evaluation of the imposition of a condition to the extension of his fixed-term appointment, he did not contest the actual non-extension of his appointment which was yet to be taken at that time. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment before he filed the present application. Accordingly, any appeal of the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment would not be receivable ratione materiae. The imposition of the condition of resignation did not in itself have a direct legal impact on the Applicant’s...
In sum, based on the record on file and the oral evidence provided at the hearing held on 12-14 October 2021, the Tribunal finds that it is established that the Applicant slapped MK on 25 November 2016 but the rest of the allegations by MK are not established. Since it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant slapped MK, the established facts amount to misconduct. Considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct, mitigating circumstances that the Administration took into account, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable...
The Applicant did not request the complainant's testimony and therefore waived his right to cross-examine her despite being allowed the opportunity to make such request in due course during these proceedings. The complainant’s account remained detailed, coherent and consistent in her complaint and in the interview with the investigators. It was also largely corroborated by the statement of the colleague to whom she promptly reported the incident.The Tribunal also notes the absence of any evidence suggesting ill-motive on the side of the complainant. This evidence meets the standards laid out...
In the present case, in the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, he explicitly “reserved†the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant’s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...
