UNDT/2019/146, Abu Amra
The Applicant’s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal’s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant’s continuing appointment and the absence of good faith efforts to place him in a suitable post are receivable. Since the Applicant was informed of the decision to terminate his continuing appointment on 5 August 2018, he should have requested management evaluation by 4 October 2018. He did not request management evaluation until 5 February 2019 thus his claim is time-barred. Should it be the Applicant’s case that he had the right to be retained in his position unless and until the Organization found him an alternative post, he should have contested it within the context of the 5 August decision with its unconditional phrasing. This he failed to do timely.
The decision of the Administration to terminate the Applicant’s continuing appointment following the abolition of his post, without having made good faith efforts to assist him in finding an alternative position or in undertaking a comparative review exercise.
When seeking review of an impugned decision by Management Evaluation Unit (MEU), a staff member is required to clearly identify the administrative decision he or she is seeking to challenge. For an application to be receivable, the applicant must first submit a request for management evaluation within the applicable time limit. The alleged failure by the Respondent to make good faith efforts to place a staff member is not a discrete and contestable administrative decision.