�山����

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member’s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff member but rather they govern staff relations. They do not have direct impact on individual staff member’s contractual rights. The provisions regulate how staff members shall organise themselves and be equitably represented through fair elections following electoral regulations. The provisions do not deal with the specific and technical details of conducting elections rather, they leave that to the staff representative bodies through polling officers who shall be guided by electoral regulations.

The Tribunal held that the impugned decision failed to identify any obligation within the provision that the Administration abdicated from because the Applicant did not claim to be a polling officer to whom staff rule 8.1(d) applies.

The Applicant did not identify a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed which had a direct and adverse impact on her employment contract.

The Tribunal determined that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that staff rule 8.1 (d) as read with staff regulation 8.1(b) formed part of her terms of appointment and contract of employment or that they regulated her individual contractual relationship with the Secretary-General. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the decision contested failed the test of a reviewable administrative decision, it had no direct impact and produced no adverse legal consequences on the Applicant’s terms of contract and appointment.