Juge Hunter Jr.
¸é±ð³¦±ð±¹²¹²ú¾±±ô¾±³Ù¨¦
Le D¨¦fendeur a contest¨¦ la recevabilit¨¦ de la requ¨ºte.
Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que la demande d¨¦pos¨¦e le 2 mars 2022 par courrier ¨¦lectronique ¨¦tait essentiellement la m¨ºme que celle d¨¦pos¨¦e le 16 avril 2022 via le portail eFiling. Par cons¨¦quent, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la Directive pratique n¡ã 4, par. 11, le Tribunal a jug¨¦ la pr¨¦sente requ¨ºte recevable.
²Ñ¨¦°ù¾±³Ù±ð²õ
Dans la pr¨¦sente affaire, ce Tribunal a examin¨¦ les questions suivantes :
un. Si les faits sur lesquels la mesure disciplinaire ¨¦tait fond¨¦e ont ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis selon la norme applicable.
Le Tribunal a examin¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve...
Pour d¨¦terminer la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e, le Tribunal a examin¨¦ les questions suivantes :
un. Si le rendement du demandeur a ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦valu¨¦ de mani¨¨re juste et objective.
Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait fond¨¦e sur les dossiers du requ¨¦rant pour les cycles de performance 2018-2019, 2019-2020 et 2020-2021. Le demandeur a re?u la note ? r¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes en mati¨¨re de rendement ? pour les cycles 2018-2019 et 2019-2020 et la note ? ne r¨¦pond pas aux attentes en mati¨¨re de rendement ? pour le cycle 2020-2021.
Le Tribunal a examin¨¦ les ¨¦valuations de...
Le demandeur affirme que plusieurs ¨¦v¨¦nements de conduite interdite se sont produits entre 2018 et 2022 et l¡¯ont affect¨¦. Cependant, il n'a pas suivi la proc¨¦dure pr¨¦vue par les bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Interdiction de la discrimination, du harc¨¨lement, y compris le harc¨¨lement sexuel, et de l'abus d'autorit¨¦) et ST/SGB/2019/8 (Lutte contre la discrimination, le harc¨¨lement, y compris le harc¨¨lement sexuel, et l'abus d'autorit¨¦). harc¨¨lement et abus de pouvoir) pour le traitement des rapports officiels de conduite interdite et le Tribunal du contentieux n'a pas comp¨¦tence pour mener une...
Receivability
The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application.
The Tribunal noted that the application filed on 2 March 2022 via email was essentially the same as that filed on 16 April 2022 via the eFiling portal. Consequently, in line with Practice Direction No. 4, para. 11, the Tribunal found that the present application was receivable.
Merits
In the present case, this Tribunal examined the following issues:
a. Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established according to the applicable standard.
The Tribunal examined the evidence on...
To determine the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:
a. Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.
The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant¡¯s records for the performance cycles of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. The Applicant received a rating of ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cycles and a rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± for the 2020-2021 cycle.
The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations...
The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.
There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...
Le Tribunal doit veiller ¨¤ ce qu¡¯une d¨¦cision administrative soit pr¨¦sum¨¦e contraire aux conditions d¡¯engagement du fonctionnaire ou ¨¤ son contrat d¡¯emploi, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l¡¯alin¨¦a a) du paragraphe 1 de l¡¯article 2 du Statut du Tribunal. Cette d¨¦cision doit ¨ºtre prise unilat¨¦ralement par l¡¯Administration, ¨ºtre adress¨¦e au fonctionnaire et avoir des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes pour celui-ci.
The Tribunal must ensure that there is an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment or his or her contract of employment, as provided for in art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Such decision must be unilaterally taken by the Administration, be directed to the staff member, and have direct legal consequences for the staff member.
Le Tribunal a conclu que le demandeur n¡¯avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦, par des preuves claires et convaincantes, qu¡¯on lui avait refus¨¦ une chance ¨¦quitable d¡¯¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦. En cons¨¦quence, le Tribunal a conclu que la d¨¦cision de s¨¦lection contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale car l¡¯Administration avait exerc¨¦ de mani¨¨re appropri¨¦e son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire dans la s¨¦lection du candidat s¨¦lectionn¨¦.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested selection decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in selecting the selected candidate.
?tant donn¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant a ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦engag¨¦ et nomm¨¦ apr¨¨s le 1er juillet 2007, son admissibilit¨¦ ¨¤ participer ¨¤ l¡¯assurance maladie apr¨¨s la cessation de service est subordonn¨¦e ¨¤ la condition qu¡¯il remplisse les crit¨¨res ¨¦nonc¨¦s ¨¤ l¡¯article 2.1 a) ii) de l¡¯instruction administrative ST/AI/2007/3. Plus pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, il doit avoir cotis¨¦ ¨¤ un r¨¦gime contributif d¡¯assurance maladie de l¡¯Organisation des Nations Unies pendant au moins dix ans.
Since the Applicant¡¯s re-employment and new appointment occurred after 1 July 2007, his eligibility to participate in ASHI is contingent on his fulfilling the criteria laid out in sec. 2.1(a)(ii) of ST/AI/2007/3. Specifically, he is required to have been a participant in a contributory health insurance plan of the United Nations for a minimum of ten years.
Le Tribunal a conclu qu¡¯il n¡¯¨¦tait ni d¨¦raisonnable ni ill¨¦gal d¡¯exiger du demandeur qu¡¯il travaille ¨¤ partir du bureau deux jours par semaine. L¡¯Administration a donc exerc¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en rejetant la demande du demandeur de travailler ¨¤ domicile pendant toute la semaine de travail. Le Tribunal a pris note que le demandeur avait ¨¦t¨¦ en mesure de travailler ¨¤ distance ¨¤ temps plein de mars 2020 ¨¤ d¨¦cembre 2022 et qu¡¯il y avait un besoin op¨¦rationnel pour le demandeur de retourner au travail. Le directeur a raisonnablement soupes¨¦ ce fait op¨¦rationnel par rapport...
The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable nor unlawful to require the Applicant to work from the office for two days per week. The Administration, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in declining the Applicant¡¯s request to work from home for the entire work week. The Tribunal took note that the Applicant had been able to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 to December 2022 and that there was an operational need for the Applicant to return to work. The Director reasonably, weighed this operational fact against allowing the Applicant to telecommute for the entire...
Qu'il y ait eu un v¨¦ritable processus de restructuration dans le cas pr¨¦sent, rien ne prouve que l'exercice de restructuration n'¨¦tait pas authentique. Au lieu de cela, les preuves montrent qu'il y avait une v¨¦ritable restructuration ¨¤ grande ¨¦chelle, ce qui a entra?n¨¦ la s¨¦paration de nombreux membres du personnel et du personnel non-personnel du service. La restructuration du WSSCC ¨¦tait en effet la fermeture du WSSCC et la cr¨¦ation du SHF. De plus, le fort soutien des donateurs montre qu'il s'agissait d'une v¨¦ritable restructuration. ?tant donn¨¦ que les donateurs ont un objectif fondamental...
Whether there was a genuine restructuring process In the present case, there is no evidence that the restructuring exercise was not genuine. Instead, the evidence shows that there was a genuine, large-scale restructuring, and this resulted in numerous staff members and non-staff personnel being separated from service. The restructuring of WSSCC was in effect the shutting down of WSSCC and the establishment of the SHF. Moreover, the strong donor support shows that it was a genuine restructuring. As the donors have a fundamental objective to ensure that the funds they provide are appropriately...
Port¨¦e du contr?le judiciaire et d¨¦cision contest¨¦e Le demandeur a d¨¦crit la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e comme un non-mise en ?uvre de ?mesures pour promouvoir un environnement de travail harmonieux et prot¨¦ger le personnel contre la conduite interdite par le biais de mesures pr¨¦ventives?. En tant que rem¨¨des, le demandeur a demand¨¦ des dommages-int¨¦r¨ºts pour pr¨¦judice moral et d¨¦tresse ¨¦motionnelle r¨¦sultant de la violation de l'administration de son devoir d'assurer un environnement de travail harmonieux. En cons¨¦quence, le demandeur cherche ¨¤ contester l¡¯administration de ne pas prendre de mesures...
Scope of judicial review and the contested decision The Applicant described the contested decision as a failure to implement ¡°measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect personnel from prohibited conduct through preventive measures¡±. As remedies, the Applicant sought damages for moral harm and emotional distress resulting from the Administration¡¯s breach of its duty to ensure a harmonious work environment. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks to contest the Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect him from...
Le tribunal constate que l'explication de l'intim¨¦ expliquant pourquoi le poste du demandeur ¨¦tait celui choisi pour l'abolition est bien ¨¦tay¨¦. Il y a eu une v¨¦ritable restructuration ¨¤ grande ¨¦chelle due ¨¤ de graves coupes budg¨¦taires, ce qui a entra?n¨¦ la s¨¦paration des autres membres du personnel, y compris le demandeur, et il y a eu une explication l¨¦gitime pour les recrutements et les postes vacants qui n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦ annul¨¦s. La pr¨¦somption de r¨¦gularit¨¦ ¨¦tait satisfaite. ?tant donn¨¦ que le demandeur ne peut pas montrer de mani¨¨re convaincante pourquoi son poste n'aurait pas d? ¨ºtre...
The Tribunal finds that the Respondent¡¯s explanation as to why the Applicant¡¯s post was the one chosen for abolition is well substantiated. There was a genuine large scale restructuring due to severe budget cuts, which resulted in other staff members being separated from service, including the Applicant, and there was a legitimate explanation for the recruitments and vacancies that were not cancelled. The presumption of regularity was satisfied. Since the Applicant cannot convincingly show why his post should not have been abolished even though the posts of dozens of other staff members...