Home

MT, who had not taken the required competency-based interview training, asked the following questions (paraphrased): “Please provide an example of when you did not agree with a decision by your manager and how did you convince them to change their mind”, and, “How do you build trust with your staff”? The questions bear no Case No. (...) The question, “How do you build trust with your staff?” was about building trust which is an entirely separate managerial competency not included in the advertised JO and certainly had no connection to accountability; x.

On 1 October 2009, the investigators went to 20 Beekman Place, NY, in order to ascertain whether the Applicant was living or had lived in the building. According to the unsigned note to file, the investigators spoke with the doorman and a person in charge of building maintenance, who said they recalled that the Applicant had previously lived in apartment No. 11 of the building. 37. (...) Diana Sullivan of Solil Management, the company in charge of the management of the building at 20 Beekman Place, NY. According to the unsigned note to file, Ms.

Victim 2 remembered that this incident happened in a building on the Second Avenue, outside the United Nations premises. 26. The OAI investigators found out that the CSW Youth Forum did hold a two-day conference in New York, at the Salvation Army Building located between the Third Avenue and Lexington Avenue on 11 March 2016 and the Conference Building of the United Nations Secretariat on 12 March 2016. But a men’s restroom located in the basement of the Salvation Army Building had only one functioning urinal for men during the CSW event in March 2016 as the other urinal was out of order at the time.

The Applicant jumped from the second floor in order to escape from the building. In the process his ankles were broken. 3.

Over the next year, several trainings were arranged for the Court Reporters who were not yet familiar with the real time system so that they could become proficient in the system in order to be able to produce real time transcripts. Speed building sessions were held, so were training sessions with regard to the real time software program. (...) UNDT/2010/136 Page 12 of 18 was used to introduce on-line speed building training sessions to improve speed and accuracy of notes of the Court Reporters. (...) It is also not contested that several in-house trainings and an on- line training had been carried out for the Court Reporters on speed-building and on the new software and that a consultant had also been engaged for the same purpose.

In particular, it was noted that the Director, ID, OIOS, and the USG/OIOS, had provided counselling to the Deputy Director, ID, OIOS, with regard to his management style and team-building efforts. 18. By a separate application, the Applicant contested the outcome of the investigation into his complaint against the Deputy Director, ID, OIOS. 19. (...) The latter can involve inter alia mediation, team-building exercises and coaching managers and/or staff members based on a “case-by-case” evaluation and the gravity of each situation, or, when an investigation took place (as in this case) according to the findings of the investigation. 78. (...) In that respect, it was noted that the Director, ID, OIOS, and the USG/OIOS had provided counselling to the Deputy Director, ID; OIOS, with regard to his management style and team-building efforts. Case No. UNDT/GVA/2018/112 Judgment No.

According to the Applicant’s statement submitted to the SIU, on 1 May 2016, in the morning, the Applicant passed by the MINUSCA building known as “Villa MINUSCA” on his way to watch a football match as part of the May Day celebrations. (...) JY, who also was not interviewed by the SIU, said at the hearing that when the incident occurred, the Applicant and Mr. G were inside the building while he was at the door entrance. Mr. JY said that Mr. MY was not inside the building and did not witness the incident. According to Mr.

Much as the Rules do not provide for the composition of an interview panel, as a matter of established practice and in line with the United Nations core values of integrity and professionalism and the core and managerial competencies of accountability and building trust, such a panel is usually made up of a minimum of three persons. (...) This kind of situation must not be tolerated within the UN Organisation for its capacity to destroy rather than build trust - a required managerial competency, and the denial of due process which is its by-product. 44. (...) To act ultra vires and yet believe that one is within the boundaries of his job and functions do not exhibit the expected UN managerial competencies of leadership, building trust and decision-making. 60. The Programme Manager in this case, perhaps due to a mistaken perception of his role, conducted the evaluation process in issue to quite an extent outside the Rules of the Organisation.

Case No. 2012-408, McIlwraith NOTING that all sixteen cases are related and that, in Order No. 139 (2013), the President of the Appeals Tribunal indicated that the cases would be heard by the Appeals Tribunal as a whole pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal; NOTING that as Judge Weinberg de Roca has recused herself from the cases and Judge Courtial will not attend the fall session, the Appeals Tribunal “as a whole” shall comprise five Judges for the purposes of these cases; THE UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL Order No. 158 (2013) 4 of 6 NOTING that a number of the individual litigants requested that the Appeals Tribunal hold oral proceedings and, in the afore-mentioned Order No. 139 (2013), the President of the Appeals Tribunal announced that one oral hearing would be held concerning all of the above- referenced cases during the fall session of the Appeals Tribunal; NOTING that the litigants can be grouped on the basis of their pleadings, some of which are substantively identical; ORDER, pursuant to Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal, that oral hearings shall be held in the Courtroom of the Office of Administration of Justice, 730 3rd avenue (Teacher’s building), 7th floor, in New York, on Wednesday, 9 October 2013, at 9:30 a.m., New York time, and Thursday, 10 October 2013, at 9:30 a.m., New York time; INFORM the parties that the timetable of the hearings shall be as follows, subject to adjustments where appropriate: Wednesday, 9 October 2013: Secretary-General’s appeals 9:30 - 9:40 Introductory statement by the President and appearances and identification of the parties (10 minutes) 9:40 – 10:00 Submissions by the Secretary-General (20 minutes) 10:00 – 10:20 Submissions on behalf of Baig, Malmstrom, Jarvis, Goy, Nicholls, Marcussen, Reid, Edgerton, Dygeus and Sutherland (20 minutes) 10:20 – 10:40 Submissions on behalf of Ademagic et al. and Longone (20 minutes) 10:40 – 11:00 Submissions by McIlwraith (20 minutes) 11:00 – 11:10 Additional submissions by the Secretary-General (optional) (10 minutes) 11:10 – 11:20 Additional submissions on behalf of Baig, Malmstrom, Jarvis, Goy, Nicholls, Marcussen, Reid, Edgerton, Dygeus and Sutherland (optional) (10 minutes) 11:20 – 11:30 Additional submissions on behalf of Ademagic et al. and Longone (optional) (10 minutes) 11:30 – 11:40 Additional submissions by McIlwraith (optional) (10 minutes) THE UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL Order No. 158 (2013) 5 of 6 Thursday, 10 October 2013: Individual appeals 9:30 - 9:40 Introductory statement by the President and appearances and identification of the parties (10 minutes) 9:40 – 10:00 Submissions on behalf of the appellants in Case No. 2012-394, Baig Case No. 2012-395, Malmstrom Case No. 2012-396, Jarvis Case No. 2012-398, Goy Case No. 2012-399, Nicholls Case No. 2012-400, Marcussen Case No. 2012-401, Reid Case No. 2012-402, Edgerton Case No. 2012-403, Dygeus Case No. 2012-404, Sutherland (20 minutes) 10:00 – 10:20 Submissions on behalf of the appellants in Cases No. 2012-397, Longone and No. 2012-393, Ademagic et al. (20 minutes) 10:20 – 10:40 Submissions in Case No. 2012-408, McIlwraith (20 minutes) 10:40 – 11:00 Submissions by the Secretary-General in the “individual appeals” (20 minutes) 11:00 – 11:10 Additional submissions on behalf of Baig, Malmstrom, Jarvis, Goy, Nicholls, Marcussen, Reid, Edgerton, Dygeus and Sutherland (optional) (10 minutes) 11:10 – 11:20 Additional submissions on behalf of the appellants Longone and Ademagic et al.

Was a proper decision taken on 31 October 2005, after the External Complaint had been filed, to relocate the Applicant from DC-2 [a United Nations building at Headquarters] to DC-1 [another United Nations building at Headquarters]? (...) On 31 October 2005, the Applicant was advised by the ASG/DESA that he would be moved from his then-current location in DC-2 (the building in which the Applicant and the Complainant both worked) to DC-1 (another building in close proximity).