Ãå±±½ûµØ

Application for suspension of action pending management evaluation in disciplinary matters: It is clear from a plain reading of article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute, article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure and staff rule 11.2 that the two former provisions apply only where management evaluation is required. In the instant case, the contested decision is a disciplinary measure which can be challenged before the Tribunal without first seeking management evaluation. Thus, the Tribunal cannot rely on these provisions to order the requested suspension of action pending management evaluation...

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before the expiry of the 90-day period, the 90-day period to file an application before the Tribunal starts running again from the date the response is given. Evaluation criteria: It is clear from ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and the Guidelines for programme case...

Receivability: For an application to be receivable, it must clearly identify the contested decision and be preceded by a request for management evaluation, where management evaluation is required.

Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. Requirement to request for management evaluation for former staff members: Irrespective of whether an applicant is a current or a former staff member of the United Nations, he or she must request a management evaluation, where required, prior to filing his or her application with the Dispute Tribunal. Legal hierarchy and request for management evaluation: Even assuming that staff rule 11.2(a), insofar as it is silent on whether a former staff member must also request...

An appeal to an internal review panel established for such purpose did not amount to a written request for management evaluation addressed to the Secretary-General.

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ãå±±½ûµØdo not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant’s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, UNON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant’s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, UNON/DSS’ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

The Respondent claimed that the appeals with the UNDT were filed out of time and were not receivable. 42 of the requests for management evaluation were filed on 19 March 2013 and a response from the MEU was emailed to the legal representatives for the Applicants, cc’ing each of the Applicants, on 9 April 2013. The legal representatives for the Applicants submitted that he never received the email resulting in him appealing the contested decision on day 90 (17 July 2013), following the expiry of the 30 day period for the MEU to send them a decision (19 April 2013). The Respondent submitted that...

The Tribunal found that the selected candidate did not fulfill the requirement of fluency in French hence his selection was illegal, despite his status as a roster candidate. It further noted that since the Administration had not examined the other candidates, including the Applicant, the latter’s right to full and fair consideration was violated. The Applicant had only requested the rescission of the decision not to select her, without requesting the rescission of the decision to select the successful candidate. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s request for rescission and merely ordered...

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. UNOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. UNOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons UNDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...