��ż���

a. Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence on record, the Organization terminated the Applicant’s appointment under staff rule 9.6(c) due to the abolishment of the post that he encumbered. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Applicant’s permanent appointment on the basis of abolishment of his post was procedurally proper and lawful.

b. On the second issue, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence before it, the Organization had fulfilled its obligation under staff rule 9.6(c) to make reasonable and good...

The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant had met all the requirements for a suspension of action by showing that the contested decision appeared prima facie to be unlawful, that this was a case of particular urgency, and that implementation of the decision would cause irreparable damage.

The Application was granted in part.

The Tribunal rescinded the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant, and ordered reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation in lieu, calculated at two (2) year’s net base salary.

In all other respects, the Respondent’s decision is AFFIRMED and the Applicant’s prayers refused.

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by UNFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by UNFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...

A staff member’s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-UNAT-1030, para. 34).

The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by UNICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

Accordin...

The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:

Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization

While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...

The Applicant’s request for RC to prepare questions for the ACABQ members to ask the USG/OSAA about the issues that the Senior Managers had been contesting in the office was a breach of staff regulation 1.2(i) which provides that “[s]taff members shall exercise the utmost discretion with regard to all matters of official business. They shall not communicate to any Government, entity, person or any other source any information known to them by reason of their official position that they know or ought to have known has not been made public, except as appropriate in the normal course of their...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the “non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds”. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was “due to lack of funds”. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...