UNDT/2019/084, Ruyffelaere
Given that the Applicant believed that he had to receive the decision directly from the USG/DM he ought reasonably to have concluded that there was an implied decision not to commission a fact-finding enquiry long before his request for management evaluation on 25 April 2017, two years and seven months after he was notified by OIOS that they had referred his complaint to the USG/DM. The interests of both staff members and the decision maker/s are best served by a contemporaneous record of the fact that there was a review under the guidance or delegated authority of the responsible official and that the decision was notified to the staff member on a particular date. Ideally, irrespective of whether it is mandated by the Staff Rules or not, the decision is best communicated in writing. Not only would this be in conformity with good administrative practice, but it will best serve the interests of a just and expeditious consideration and determination of any formal complaint. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s claim is not receivable, and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case.
Decision not to formally respond to his complaint and failing to establish a fact-finding panel pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5.
There must be a timely request for management evaluation prior to submitting an application to the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have power to waive the deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation or to make any exception to it. A staff member has no general right to compel the Administration to conduct a fact-finding investigation where none is warranted, and determining whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation is a matter within the discretion of the responsible official. A staff member’s request for a reiteration of an administrative decision does not reset the time limits for contesting the decision.