UNDT/2012/188, Reid

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the Applicant first became aware that something was amiss in the recruitment process on 29 February 2008 when he was told that a “hold had been put on” the issuance of his letter of appointment by the SRSG. Subsequently, the Applicant was aware of the decision to appoint another candidate to the position in question in June 2008. Still later, in April 2009, and from the Applicant’s own; submissions, while in New York, he received what he called a “verbal apology” (for the way things turned out) from the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. The Tribunal noted that any of these “events” would have been a suitable time for the Applicant to seek administrative review of the selection decision; but he did not. Rather, the Applicant chose to wait until 2011 before raising the matter first with the SecretaryGeneral and then the Tribunal. In view of the above, the Tribunal held that the application was properly time-barred and it was accordingly dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant alleged breach of contract and discrimination, following his application for the position of Chief of Staff, which he was told he was selected for but was never issued a letter of appointment. The Applicant submitted that, following several queries on the cause of the letter being held up, he came to find out that the position was being offered to a female candidate who was also a friend of the Special Representative to the Secretary-General (SRSG) of the Mission.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c ), a request for a management evaluation shall not be receivable by the Secretary-General unless it is sent within 60 calendar days from the date on which the staff member received the notification of the administrative decision to be contested. Pursuant to art. 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal has no power to waive or suspend the deadlines for management evaluation. As per the settled jurisprudence, the Dispute Tribunal may only review decisions that have been subject of a proper and timely request for management evaluation.

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.