text: reasons set out in ...; 5.1.3The Board recommends that the Appellant's claim for- 8 - reimbursement of the cost of solicitor's fee be rejected for the reasons set out in ...; 5.1.4The Board recommends that the Appellant's claim for compensation for the losses incurred in selling the contents of his former residence in the United Kingdom (46 Headley Close, Brentwood) be rejected for the reasons set out in ...; 5.1.5The Board recommends that the Appellant be paid a lump sum of $500 for the reasons set out in ...; 5.1.6The Board recommends that the Appellant be awarded a pecuniary compensation in the amount of $10,000 for the reasons set out in ...". On 21 February 1986, the Secretary-General informed the Applicant that, having re-examined the case in the light of the Board's report, he had decided to maintain the contested decision. On 27 May 1988, the Applicant filed with the Tribunal the application referred to earlier. Whereas the Applicant's principal contentions are: 1.The Respondent was consistently unfair to the Applicant as Regional Adviser in Latin America and discriminated in favour of the Assistant Regional Adviser. 2.The Respondent did not clearly define the working relationship and the division of duties between the two advisers. 3.The Respondent failed to follow his own rules. Whereas the Respondent's principal contentions are: 1.The Secretary-General was fully entitled not to renew the Applicant's appointment. 2.No unfair or prejudicial actions were taken during the Applicant's employment. The Tribunal, having deliberated from 30 April to 14 May 1990, now pronounces the following judgement:- 9 - I.In his pleas, the Applicant complained that the Respondent was "consistently unfair" to him and discriminated in favour of the Assistant Regional Marine Pollution Adviser, Mr. Vergara. To substantiate his claim, the Applicant has cited a series of
analysis: The text appears to be related to a dispute or controversy involving an individual's employment or professional relationship, with claims of unfair treatment, discrimination, and breach of rules. The context suggests a professional or organizational setting, possibly within an international organization or government agency.