�鶹��ý

Since he remained a WFP staff member and pursuant to the above-mentioned Inter-Organization Agreement, the applicant never had a contractual relationship with UNAMID. Only WFP was in a position to render decisions that could affect his terms of appointment. Two decisions were at stake. With respect to the first (WFP decision not to treat him as a D-1), his case could not be heard before UNDT because WFP has recognised ILOAT as judicial review body. Concerning the second (UNAMID decision not to appoint him as Deputy Director), the applicant is not a “staff member” within the meaning of art. 3...

It is clear from the reimbursable loan agreement that UNAMID and WFP agreed on the Applicant’s loan at the P-5 level. He thus had no reason to believe that he would be paid at the D-1 level or that he would be promoted to that level by UNAMID. Although the Applicant was informed of his selection for the Deputy Director post, he never received a letter of appointment from UNAMID which could have created contractual rights in his favour. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that UNAMID made any promise to him or committed any fault for which it could be held responsible.

The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...

The Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, its role is to examine: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established; (ii) whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct; (iii) the proportionality of the disciplinary measure; and (iv) whether there was a substantive or procedural irregularity. Further, the Tribunal noted that in reviewing disciplinary cases, it must scrutinize the facts of the investigation, the nature of the charges, the response of the staff member, oral testimony if available and draw its own conclusions. The...

The UNDT found that the Applicant had been grossly negligent in that a duty-conscious and vigilant Logistics Assistant in the Applicant’s position ought to have reasonably foreseen that the documents in possession of Mr Weah were sufficient to enable him to misappropriate the containers. The sanction was fair and proportionate. The Application therefore failed. Negligence test: Three elements which must be established to prove gross negligence; namely, (1) a failure in the form of an act or omission to exercise the requisite standard of care; (2) the standard of care required is that which a...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.

The Tribunal concluded that the sanction was taken in accordance with the applicable regulations and rules that govern disciplinary matters and that it was in line with sanctions applied in other matters of similar nature. The Applicant’s due process rights were respected throughout the preliminary investigation and the ensuing disciplinary process. The contested decision was both factually and legally reasoned and did not reflect any bias, improper motivates, flawed procedural irregularity or errors of law. The Applicant’s disciplinary liability was correctly determined and the disciplinary...

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant’s father had the legal status of an independent contractor for the WFP Mombasa office, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s father was not a staff member of UNDP and as such, the Applicant has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

The Applicant contended, inter alia, that WFP breached her due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings and she did not breach any of the applicable rules. The evidence before the Tribunal sustained the Applicant’s contention that WFP’s investigators did not respect her due process rights. The ground of appeal related to the irregularity of the disciplinary proceeding is accepted and the Tribunal does not need to analyse the rest of the Applicant’s contentions. The rescission of the contested decision is, per se, a fair and sufficient remedy for the moral prejudice caused to the...

The parties agreed that the facts were not contested and that the issue for the Tribunal’s consideration was whether the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities was proportionate to the Applicant’s conduct. Taking the mitigation circumstances into consideration, the UNDT found that the sanction was not proportionate to the facts and substituted it for the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnities. The Tribunal agrees with the facts that the Applicant’s conduct was improper and that she...