UNDT/2020/076, Ories
The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave receiving all of the salary, benefits and entitlements he was due. The Tribunal was not persuaded by the argument that even though the Applicant was declared medically unfit by his own doctor he should have been afforded the entitlements of a person with disabilities and as such allowed to return to work at a new duty station before being declared fit. There is no staff rule or regulation mandating a right to reassignment on medical grounds. The Applicant had no rulebased right to reassignment on medical grounds. No staff rule or regulation required the Applicant to be assigned to the post in question. Staff regulations 1.2(c) and 6.2 do not provide a right to reassignment that has been breached by the Respondent. There was no basis for a finding that the Respondent exercised the discretion in a manner that was unlawful, procedurally incorrect or irrational in either taking into account irrelevant matters or failing to consider relevant matters.
The Applicant challenged (i) the Respondent’s refusal of his request for a transfer to a different duty station on medical grounds; and (ii) his failure to afford the Applicant the proper duty of care by continued delay and the refusal of his transfer request.
A staff member must be familiar with the Staff Rules and understand their obligation to act in conformance with those rules. This means that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before the Dispute Tribunal. The requirement of management evaluation assures that there is an opportunity to quickly resolve a staff member’s complaint or dispute without the need for judicial intervention. Staff regulation 1.2(c) gives the Respondent the authority to assign a staff member to any of the offices of the United Nations. In so doing he must seek to ensure that necessary safety and security arrangements are made for staff carrying out their assigned duties. There was no reviewable decision under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute because the broadcast was not an administrative decision. There is no staff rule or regulation mandating a right to reassignment on medical grounds. The Applicant had no rule-based right to reassignment on medical grounds. No staff rule or regulation required the Applicant to be assigned to the post in question. Staff regulations 1.2(c) and 6.2 do not provide a a right to reassignment that has been breached by the Respondent. The Applicant could only be entitled to damages for delay if his applications were receivable and had merit in the first place.