UNDT/2020/155, Ssewaguma et al.
The Tribunal found the application receivable because: 1)Although the Applicants, who were self-represented, referred to and addressed some of the findings in the management evaluation response at section VII of their application, the applications were evidently not directed at the Management Evaluation Unit response but rather at the decision not to renew their appointments beyond 30 June 2019. 2)The 5 April 2019 notice was not unambiguous and the non-extension decision may have been interpreted as conditioned upon the future General Assembly resolution on the budget. The communication dated 29 May 2019 was clearly unconditional, notwithstanding that, at the time, the budget had not yet been approved. Merits The Tribunal recalled General Assembly resolutions 68/254 and 73/276 which highlighted that “decisions taken by the Dispute Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal shall conform with the provisions of General Assembly resolutions on issues related to human resources management”. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicants had no basis to dispute the decisions on non-extension and separation because the General Assembly had approved abolition of their posts by its resolution 73/315.
The Applicants contested the non-renewal of their fixed-term appointments beyond 30 June 2019.
UNAT has consistently deemed as irreceivable cases in which applicants have unambiguously challenged the responses to their management evaluation requests due to the absence of a reviewable administrative decision. However, where an application does not clearly articulate the claim or issues, the Tribunal is vested with the inherent power to: individualize and define the administrative decision being challenged and consider the application as a whole, including the relief or remedies requested by the staff member, in determining the contested or impugned decisions to be reviewed. Picking on particular expressions used, especially when originating from an unrepresented applicant, with no regard to the overall context, is not bonae fidei interpretation. The Tribunal will not interfere with a genuine organizational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. The Administration, however, has a duty to act fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members and any procedure adopted must be in accordance with relevant rules and policies.