Ãå±±½ûµØ

Abuse of Process: Proceedings before the Tribunal are not the proper forum to advocate legal reform. Where the Tribunal determines that any applications before it are frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of the Court’s process, it will not hesitate to visit sanctions upon the offending party as provided for in the UNDT Statute. Vexatious Proceedings: An action may be held to be vexatious if it is obviously unsustainable, or frivolous, improper or instituted without sufficient ground to serve solely as an annoyance to the Respondent.

Effect of the breach of due process rights: The Tribunal found that while the Applicant had been denied some of his due process rights at the investigation stage, this breach was cured by the subsequent court proceedings. Further, the Tribunal held that the sanction of summary dismissal was fully justified in view of: (i) the status of the Applicant in the procurement process of ECA; (ii) the fact that he contracted with United Nations vendors without disclosing that fact in clear terms; and (iii) the fact that he was engaged to some extent in the activities of two other companies without...

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant’s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.

As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed within the applicable time limits. The Tribunal found that in respect to decision 3, the Applicant requested management evaluation outside the prescribed time limit and therefore the Application with regard to decision 3 was not receivable. Mediation and Time-Limits: If a party to a dispute makes mediation overtures within the applicable time lines for filing an Application and the other party consents to participation in the mediation process then the time limit for filing an Application is suspended and begins to run when the mediation has...

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant’s MEU request indicated that he...

The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent’s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant’s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...

The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant’s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...