Home

This way, the amount charged as Specialized Technology Services Fee remains the same throughout the different grades. 29. (...) This way, the amount charged as Specialized Technology Services Fee remains the same throughout the different grades. 98. (...) The school’s explanations make it clear that specialized technology fees cover the costs of “information technology infrastructure of the school”.

On 11 May 2004 the D-1 post of Chief, Information and Communication Technology Division, was advertised on the Galaxy Translated from French Case No. (...) The vacancy announcement for the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division, elicited no candidates eligible for consideration at the 15-day mark. (...) In the selection process for the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division, the Executive Secretary incorrectly evaluated his experience, skills and education and his United Nations core values were disregarded; b.

The Applicant joined the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) on 27 July 2005 as a Broadcast Technology Officer on a fixed-term appointment of one year which was subsequently renewed on an annual basis. (...) UNMISS has catered for one position of Broadcast Technology Officer and she was the only Broadcast Technology Officer in UNMIS. (...) The Applicant states that she understands that UNMISS has catered for one position of Broadcast Technology Officer and she was the only Broadcast Technology officer in UNMIS.

Ojjerro informing two Broadcast Technology Technicians of their reassignment from UNMIS to the new mission, UNMISS. (...) Tobgyal should be reviewed as a Broadcast Technology Officer rather than a Radio Producer. d. (...) Thus, in accordance with Information Circular 218/2011, the person who should have been transferred to the P-4 Broadcast Technology Officer post was the Applicant, as the sole P-4 Broadcast Technology Officer in UNMIS. 33.

The Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Information and Communications Technology and Chief Information Technology Officer (ASG/OICT or CITO) determined that three of the rostered candidates, including Mr. (...) Wilson also contested the decision not to fully and fairly consider his candidacy for Temporary JO 52485, Director, Information Systems and Technology, at the D-2 level, but he later withdrew this aspect from his UNDT application. (...) Moreover, the job title for JO 63461 was “Chief of Service, Information Technology Resource Management”, and not “Chief of Service, Strategic Information and Communication Technology Management”, as presented by the Secretary-General in his appeal. 7 According to the table included in Mr.

On 11 February 2016, the Applicant, a former D-2 level staff member of the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP) in New York, filed an application contesting the following three administrative decisions: a. to abolish her post of Director and Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”) in UNDP’s Office for Information Systems and Technology as a result of restructuring and reclassification processes (the “abolishment decision”); b. to “require her to undergo a competitive process” for the new post of Director and CTO at the D-1 level in the Office of Information Management and Technology (“OIMT”) (the “recruitment decision”); and c. not to select her for the post of Director and CTO, OIMT (the “selection decision”). 2.

On 11 February 2016, the Applicant, a former D-2 level staff member of the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP”) in New York, filed an application contesting the following three administrative decisions: a. to abolish her post of Director and Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”) in UNDP’s Office for Information Systems and Technology as a result of restructuring and reclassification processes (the “abolishment decision”); b. to “require her to undergo a competitive process” for the new post of Director and CTO at the D-1 level in the Office of Information Management and Technology (“OIMT”) (the “recruitment decision”); and c. not to select her for the post of Director and CTO, OIMT (the “selection decision”). 2.

On 1 March he was laterally reassigned to IDEP where, as at the date of this judgment, he has continued to serve as Senior Information Technology Office at the P-5 level. He was informed on 23 December 2015 that his lateral reassignment to IDEP will continue on a permanent basis5. 33. (...) The functions of the post of Senior Information Technology Officer at the P-5 level did not appear in the IDEP staffing table for the 2014-2015 Programme budget and needed to be formally established through the classification process. (...) The functions of the Senior Technology Officer are different from those he was engaged in as Chief, Information Technology at ECA, but the duties and responsibilities as outlined in the TOR indicate a high level of autonomy and responsibility for setting up and managing a new business venture based on IT, a field in which the Applicant has considerable skill and expertise by virtue of his previous post as Chief, Information Technology at ECA. 56.

By 2010, he was rostered for P-4 and P-5 level positions in the area of information and communication technology resources. 13. Effective 20 December 2010, the Applicant joined MINUSTAH as Chief Telecommunications and Information Technology Officer at the P-4 level on a fixed-term appointment. (...) JO 42824, Chief Communications and Information Technology Section (Amret Al Faouar), P-5 level, applied on 4 May 2015. (...) JO 43401, Chief Communications and Information Technology Section (Baghdad), P-4 level, to which the Applicant applied on 9 June 2015.

On 11 February 2016, the Applicant, a former D-2 level staff member of the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP”) in New York, filed an application contesting the following three administrative decisions: a. to abolish her post of Director and Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”) in UNDP’s Office for Information Systems and Technology as a result of restructuring and reclassification processes (the “abolishment decision”); b. to “require her to undergo a competitive process” for the new post of Director and CTO at the D-1 level in the Office of Information Management and Technology (“OIMT”) (the “recruitment decision”); and c. not to select her for the post of Director and CTO, OIMT (the “selection decision”). 2.