�鶹��ý

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).

The Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Compensation in lieu is “not related at all to the economic loss suffered” (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal’s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.

Each of the three allegations were serious on their own. The compound nature of the allegations left no possibility for any other punishment than separation. The Organization’s zero-tolerance policy also entails severe punishments for those who engage in harassment (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, para. 41).

The record indicated that the decision-maker weighed all factors, both mitigating and aggravating, before arriving at the contested decision. Since there was sufficient evidence that all factors were given due consideration, but that the aggravating...

The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.

The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...

The Applicant claims that the Administration’s indication that she will only be entitled to be considered for her long service step increment in August 2028, instead of August 2026, contravenes the terms of the settlement agreement signed previously. The issues the Tribunal considered for the purpose of receivability were, therefore, whether the subject matter of the application was one of the terms of the Agreement and whether the Agreement had been implemented or not.

In the Tribunal’s view, the record did not allow to conclude that the deferment of eligibility for increment was a matter...

It was undisputed and established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in several instances of outside activities. It was further undisputed that the Applicant was advised to seek authorization for her online activities. The Applicant’s challenge, therefore, is limited to the characterization of the established conduct as outside activities and, consequently, as misconduct.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by clear and convincing evidence

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was aware that...

The Dispute Tribunal had no record of any case filed by the Applicant ever having been transferred to it from JDC when the new system of internal justice at the United Nations took force in July 2009.

Taking into consideration the Applicant’s subsequent failure to pursue the claim for over 12 years, and the absence of any record of a case transferred to it, the Tribunal does not consider itself seized of the application filed in 2007, before the JDC.

Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable.

The Tribunal found that:

(a) The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria which would support his claim to whistleblower protection.

(b) The facts of the contested decision were properly establised. Since the Complainant had the relevant qualifications and experience, the Applicant’s attacks on her were neither well founded, nor did they constitute a fair response or comment in the circumstances. The concerns were defamatory of her professionalism and integrity. Accordingly, the Applicant made disparaging remarks about the Complainant in front of other UNJSPF staff. In addition, the Applicant...

It consistently follows from AA’s responses, or lack thereof, to the Applicant’s many texts on the proposed “bet” that he found these messages unwelcome. For instance, AA wrote to the Applicant that: “Still on that topic man?”; “I value my dignity more than $2.000”; “I do not bet”; “I thought it was a really stupid bet haha I would never [force you to pay] me, but you have kept bringing it up 1298548065908 times. That is why I say that if you continue with that emotional topic, I will send you my UNFCU account and that is it”; “The bet. Now, man, stop the subject. It is over”. Despite this...