Â鶹´«Ã½

Terms of settlement have been agreed between the parties. They have confirmed that the said terms have been fully executed and that there are no outstanding claims arising from the present case.

The UNDT found that the contested decision was based on improperly imposed conditions not stipulated under staff rule 4.18 and thus lacked proper legal basis. Further, it was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the contested decision was unlawful. The UNDT found that, had the discretion been properly exercised on the stipulated conditions, the Applicant would have been reinstated in service and shall be treated as such. The UNDT ordered rescission of the contested decision. The UNDT ordered that the Applicant be deemed as reinstated in service and that proper adjustments be made...

The application is filed within the statutory deadline and is therefore receivable.

The Applicant stated that had the post been advertised, she would have applied and would have been found to fulfill the eligibility requirements. The Applicant subsequently filed a notice stating that, having been advised concerning the receivability issues in her case by her new counsel, she wished to withdraw her application. In light of what the UNDT construed to be an equivocal withdrawal, it sought confirmation from the Applicant that the case was withdrawn fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The Applicant having stated that she was withdrawing the matter fully...

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the UNDT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant’s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...

The Applicant had been assured of her eligibility, short-listed, interviewed, recommended for the position, and copied on subsequent communications, following which the Administration decided that she was not eligible. The UNDT found that the decision to disregard part of the Applicant’s work experience because it was obtained prior to her Master’s degree was unlawful. The UNDT also found that the decision to disregard, in its entirety, the Applicant’s experience between February 2004 and April 2006 because it was deemed by OHRM to be equivalent to the G-5 or G-6 level, was unlawful...

Judge Meeran handled the case since Judge Kaman issued the judgment on the last day of her tenure with the Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the only conclusion, which could sensibly have been drawn from the fact that UNDT/2011/124 did not address the claim in explicit terms was that either Judge Kaman considered it implicitly covered in the findings or alternatively she overlooked it in her final conclusions on remedies. To the extent that it may have been an oversight, on the basis of a full examination of the record and the judgments, Judge Meeran ordered that Judge Kaman had...

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...

In this case, the Applicant is a permanent staff member who contested the selection decision of a candidate other than her, as well as her non-selection, for the Post. The application before the Tribunal was filed on 8 April 2012 which is within 90 days following her receipt of the MEU’s 23 March 2012 decision. However, seeing that the initial request for management evaluation was time-barred it has no legal effect and the application before the Tribunal is therefore not receivable.

The UNDT found that the Applicant’s service should be deemed uninterrupted and continuous on a 100 series fixed-term contract. The UNDT found that the Applicant did not suffer any loss with respect to the delay of her family leave, but that she should be awarded USD1,200 as compensation for not receiving her home leave entitlement in December 2009. The UNDT rejected the Applicant’s claims of emotional distress as unproven. The UNDT also found that the Applicant satisfied the eligibility criteria for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment and should have been considered for it...