UNDT/2011/112 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2011/112, Kayed

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of UNDP, in accordance with the practice of UNDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was requesting for such a review nor did she specify which administrative decision was to be reviewed. The letter of 23 June 2009 was addressed to the Secretary-General in a proper form but it was sent outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson.The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The Ombudsperson did not have the power to suspend the two-month time limit specified in the former Staff Rules for filing a request for administrative review.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

In 2007, the UNDP Kuwait Country Office was restructured. A job fair took place and all affected staff members were required to compete for the positions. The Applicant, a staff member at the G-6 level, applied for the position she encumbered. In November 2007, she sent a letter to several UNDP authorities complaining against a high ranking manager and the job fair exercise. She also contacted the Joint Ombudsperson. On 16 January 2008, she was notified that she had not been selected for the post and would be separated from service. On 4 March 2008, she wrote to several UNDP authorities including the Assistant Administrator to express her concerns about the job fair. On 21 October 2008, she was separated from service. In June 2009, the Joint Ombusperson informed her that an informal resolution of her case was unlikely. On 23 June 2009, the Applicant submitted a request for administrative review of the contested decisions to the Secretary-General. Her request was rejected as time-barred on 28 August 2009. On 25 November 2009, she filed an application before the Tribunal contesting her non-selection and her subsequent separation from service.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Kayed

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

UNDT/GVA/2009/096

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Geneva