�鶹��ý

The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

The UNDT found the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness to be satisfied on two issues—(i) whether the implementation of the contested decision would have the prejudicial effect of unilaterally altering the Applicant’s contract by introducing a new provision that is detrimental to her acquired rights; and (ii) whether the short notice given to the Applicant of the imposition of the 31-day period of ineligibility for re-appointment was in violation of the principles of due process, good faith and fair dealing, and the Organization’s obligation to regularly inform its employees concerning the...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children’s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...

UNDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. UNDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant’s filing of his application was prompt and...

On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). UNDT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. UNDT also held that the situation held particular urgency. UNDT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant’s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

The Respondent appeared to have a good reason for cancelling the Applicant’s leave. That having been said, however, the manner in which the Applicant was informed of that decision could have been done in a much better way. Considering the fact that the Applicant’s supervisor had only three days earlier, on 9 August 2011, approved his leave, his one-line directive cancelling the Applicant’s leave was not only callous and dismissive but most insensitive. This managerial shortcoming does not, by itself, render the decision prima facie unlawful.Although some harm is caused to the Applicant in...

Considering that the Respondent’s allegation that the Applicant’s contract was not renewed for unsatisfactory performance during the period 2009-2010, the Tribunal noted that the rating “Partially meets performance expectations” had been considered by the Rebuttal Panel as unfair and changed to “Fully meets performance expectations”. In the light of this finding the Tribunal took the view that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance for the year 20092010 was prima facie unlawful.