51³Ô¹Ï

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.

L¡¯ABCC a rectifi¨¦ les irr¨¦gularit¨¦s proc¨¦durales selon les directives du jugement n ¡ã UNT / 2019/019 dans son r¨¦examen de la r¨¦clamation du demandeur. L'ABCC a re?u et examin¨¦ un avis m¨¦dical du m¨¦decin de MSD, qui a examin¨¦ les rapports m¨¦dicaux soumis par le demandeur ainsi que ses ant¨¦c¨¦dents m¨¦dicaux. Bien que le demandeur ait fait des all¨¦gations de consid¨¦rations inappropri¨¦es, il n'a fourni aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui et ces all¨¦gations sont sans fondement.

Dans le cadre d'une d¨¦claration de cl?ture, le demandeur a soumis de nouvelles preuves ¨¦crites. Le Tribunal a rejet¨¦ toutes les nouvelles preuves, car ces preuves auraient pu ¨ºtre soumises avant la cl?ture de la proc¨¦dure et aucune circonstance exceptionnelle ne justifiait la demande tardive. Le demandeur n'¨¦tait pas pleinement inform¨¦ de toutes les preuves sur lesquelles l'administration s'appuierait pour imposer la sanction disciplinaire. Cependant, il a n¨¦anmoins ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ des all¨¦gations contre lui et, par cons¨¦quent, le tribunal a proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ un examen de novo des faits et un examen...

Le demandeur n'a pas r¨¦pondu ¨¤ une ordonnance de gestion des cas. Elle n'¨¦tait donc plus int¨¦ress¨¦e par la poursuite et l'issue des proc¨¦dures qui ont ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦put¨¦es abandonn¨¦es. L'affaire a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e faute de poursuites.

Le demandeur n'a pas mentionn¨¦ d'exp¨¦rience pertinente dans son profil d'histoire personnelle. Bien que le demandeur soit en d¨¦saccord avec l'¨¦valuation par le responsable du recrutement de la pertinence de son exp¨¦rience, il n'a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ ¨¦tablir que l'¨¦valuation du responsable du recrutement ¨¦tait d¨¦raisonnable. Le responsable du recrutement n'a pas introduit de crit¨¨res suppl¨¦mentaires pour ¨¦valuer les candidats. Les exigences minimales d'exp¨¦rience de travail pour le poste n'¨¦taient pas un ¨¦cart ill¨¦gal par rapport au profil de travail g¨¦n¨¦rique pour le poste ou ind?ment restrictif. La...

La raison donn¨¦e au demandeur de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, ¨¤ savoir la restructuration organisationnelle de l'UNFPA, est soutenue par les faits. Les preuves montrent que l'UNFPA a subi les d¨¦ficits financiers importants, et l'UNFPA, confront¨¦ ¨¤ une situation financi¨¨re aussi pr¨¦caire, a entrepris la v¨¦ritable restructuration organisationnelle qui a entra?n¨¦ la suppression du poste de demandeur et la r¨¦siliation de sa nomination. Alors que la requ¨¦rante revendique des motifs inappropri¨¦s, le tribunal conclut qu'elle n'a pr¨¦sent¨¦ aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui et n'a donc pas r¨¦pondu ¨¤ la charge de la...

La section 3.2 de ST / SGB / 2008/5 impose une ?obligation? ¨¤ l'administration ?de prendre toutes les mesures appropri¨¦es? en vue de ?promouvoir [ing] un environnement de travail harmonieux, sans intimidation, hostilit¨¦, infraction et toute forme de Conduite interdite ?, mais des directives l¨¦gales tr¨¨s limit¨¦es sont autrement fournies dans la disposition sur la pratique de ces mesures. Le seul exemple, au moins comme pertinent pour le cas pr¨¦sent, semble ¨ºtre que ?les plaintes de conduite interdite sont rapidement trait¨¦es de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable et impartiale?. Une perquisition de la...

Sur la base de ces principes tr¨¨s g¨¦n¨¦raux, et dans l'absence d'instructions ou de directives suppl¨¦mentaires - du moins, selon le cas, le tribunal d¨¦finit les normes minimales de base suivantes qui doivent s'appliquer lors de l'administration d'un test ¨¦crit: a) G¨¦n¨¦ralement, Bien que l'administration jouisse d'un large pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire sur la fa?on d'administrer un test ¨¦crit, il doit n¨¦anmoins le faire de mani¨¨re raisonnable, juste et transparente sinon, une candidature ¨¤ l'emploi ne recevrait pas une consid¨¦ration compl¨¨te et juste. b) Comme indiqu¨¦ dans le manuel, toute ¨¦valuation...

Le demandeur n'a demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation de la direction que plusieurs ann¨¦es apr¨¨s son exclusion des listes de personnel ¨¦ligibles ¨¤ la conversion de leur nomination. Il ne fait aucun doute par cons¨¦quent que le demandeur n'a pas contest¨¦ la d¨¦cision implicite en temps opportun.

Le fait que le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait membre du personnel de l'UNOPS lorsqu'il a postul¨¦ pour ces postes d'entrepreneur n'est pas pertinent pour appr¨¦cier la cr¨¦ation des r¨¦clamations du demandeur, car, dans les quatre cas instantan¨¦s, il conteste quatre d¨¦cisions de ne pas le s¨¦lectionner sur des postes de non-personnel .

La demande n'est pas ¨¤ recevoir Ratione tempis car elle a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e apr¨¨s le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal en vertu de l'art. 8.1 de son statut a expir¨¦.