�山����

In the present case, the parties reached an agreement through mediation after the application was filed and the Tribunal will reject the application as being nonreceivable.

The Tribunal found that the applications were receivable since the contested decisions produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants’ terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal further found that the chosen period of retroactive application of one year was not only unlawful because it was based on a misconstruction and misapplication of staff rule 3.16 but it was manifestly unreasonable, irrational, and above all unjustifiably discriminatory. It did not amount to a proper exercise of administrative discretion and breached the fundamental principle of equal pay...

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...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s claims of moral damage are receivable and well founded and he is awarded USD1,000 as compensation for anxiety. The Tribunal finds that it is incorrect to characterize the decision to hire new staff members as being purely preparatory in nature as the contested decision was in fact implemented and the outcome of the selection process could have adversely affected the Applicant. It is therefore a contestable administrative decision. Further, even if a decision is rescinded, if an applicant can show that there was a causal link between the breach on the...

The UNDT found that the implementation date of 1 December 2010 and the related cut-off date of 1 December 2009 for retroactive consideration, as stated in the Guidelines, were binding on the Administration. The UNDT found that the Applicant’s situation should have been reviewed accordingly. Given the administration’s failure to follow its own Guidelines, which thus renders the decision unlawful, the UNDT found it unnecessary to consider the question as to whether there has been a breach of the duty to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly followed. The contested...

The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The UNDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The UNDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant’s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU—which missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the decision to pay the multiplier of 65.5 from 1 August 2012 through 31 January 2013 to all professional staff member with duty station New York, constitutes a decision with regulatory power and not an administrative decision under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal further found that decision to pay the Applicants the amount calculated on the basis of the 65.5 for the month of January 2013 as reflected in their respective statement of earning, constitutes an administrative decision hence the application...

This case was first decided by the Dispute Tribunal by Leboeuf et al. UNDT/2010/206, rendered on 30 November 2010. The case, however, was remanded by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal for “further proceedings”. The UNDT found that the Applicants' claims against the lawfulness of the change introduced in December 2004, with effect from January 2005, are time-barred and not receivable under arts. 8.3 and 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute. The UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider them and the application was receivable only with respect to the subsequent application of the policy on...

There is no contestable administrative decision over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction, rather the Applicant is seeking to have the Tribunal substitute its view for that of the Arbitration Committee with regard to an internal UNSU matter. The application is not receivable rationae materiae. As indicated in Kisambira Order No. 36 (NY/2011), the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters involving the internal affairs of a staff association. The application is not receivable.

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the Applicant lacked legal standing, and that the second part of the application, while receivable, was unfounded, since the Secretary-General, who has the duty to facilitate the holding of the elections to the UNSCP, had no power, whatsoever, to interfere in the actual conduct and results of the elections.