Â鶹´«Ã½

Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, UNDT closed the case.

The Tribunal recalled that the burden of proof lay on the Applicant and there was nothing on record to show that the contested decision was made on the ground of improper motives against the Applicant. On the contrary, it found that OCHA had acted in good faith.

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

The UNDT found that the application was receivable. Subject matter of management evaluation request: the grant of an appointment to Dakar and the reassignment to Dakar were deemed to be one and the same issue. Thus, the Applicant had requested management evaluation of the decision to reassign him from Haiti to Dakar.

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...

Organization of work and discretion of the Secretary-General: The Secretary-General has wide discretion in the organization of work. It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own views to that of the Secretary-General on how to organize work and meet operational needs. Decisions in this sphere may be set aside only on limited grounds, for example if the competent authorities breached procedural rules, or if discretion was exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or illegal manner.Eligibility for consideration for conversion to permanent appointment: Pursuant to provisional staff Rules13.4 (b)...

The Tribunal found that the selected candidate did not fulfill the requirement of fluency in French hence his selection was illegal, despite his status as a roster candidate. It further noted that since the Administration had not examined the other candidates, including the Applicant, the latter’s right to full and fair consideration was violated. The Applicant had only requested the rescission of the decision not to select her, without requesting the rescission of the decision to select the successful candidate. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s request for rescission and merely ordered...

Improper motives: The Tribunal held that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract was motivated by improper motives in view of the fact that: (i) the Applicant’s relationship with the UN Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), under whose leadership the Applicant was working, was hostile; and (ii) the HC and the Applicant’s deputy, who had unsuccessfully competed for the Applicant’s post, had gone to great lengths to undermine him and to tarnish his reputation with OCHA leadership.

Performance: The Tribunal held that while the Applicant may have made mistakes, shown an excessive zeal, or may have...

The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant’s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...

The application was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. The Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 2,000 for abuse of process. On receivability: The Tribunal found that the PDF version of the application attached to the email of 15 September 2012, also copied to OHRM and EO/OCHA, met the requirements of art. 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal. It was moreover identical to the application filed through the e-filing portal on 15 October 2012. The Respondent’s contention that the...