UNDT/2022/095, Qassem
The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The UNDT found that the Applicant had not adduced sufficient evidence to connect his illness to the non-renewal decision. The Applicant had not appealed the disability finding and termination on those grounds and subjected it to review by management evaluation. The Administration admitted they made errors in the process; these errors were followed by his illness and termination on the ground of disability. The fact that the Applicant’s final termination was based on disability due to illness was not something that exonerated the Administration from responsibility in the circumstances. It was doubtful whether due regard was given to regulation 4.4 of article IV of the Staff Regulations which requires that in filling vacancies, regard should be had to the requisite qualifications and experience of persons already in the service of the United Nations. In this case the Administration went outside the available staff pool to increase the capacity of the Jerusalem dispatch office by employing a private contractor.
Accountability referral: Given the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Tribunal found it appropriate to refer the matter to the Secretary-General pursuant to article 10(8) of the Tribunal’s Statute for special consideration of accountability since the overall impact of the decisions taken seem to run contrary to the Charter of the United Nations in respect of its aim of finding dedicated staff and enhancing their ability to serve the organisation diligently.
The Applicant challenged the Respondent’s decision to not renew his appointment beyond 31 March 2020.
On receivability: art. 34 of UNDT Rules of Procedure provides that time limits “shall not include the day of the event from which the period runs.â€