UNDT/2023/052

UNDT/2023/052, Lago

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal must ensure that there is an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the staff member’s terms of appointment or his or her contract of employment, as provided for in art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Such decision must be unilaterally taken by the Administration, be directed to the staff member, and have direct legal consequences for the staff member.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the “[i]mplicit and continued denial by [the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP”)] to conduct an occupational health evaluation after the reported and objective exposure to toxic contaminants in the workplace”.

Legal Principle(s)

An applicant before the Tribunal is required to clearly identify the administrative decision which is contested and to provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instance in which he or she made a request and the Administration had denied or ignored such a request. An applicant also has the statutory burden to establish that the contested administrative decision was in non-compliance with the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment. Such a burden cannot be met where the applicant fails to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a specific decision which has a direct and adverse impact on his or her contractual rights.

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Outcome Extra Text

In the case at bar, while the application contains general references to requests made to officials, the Applicant has not provided any evidence that he made a specific request for an occupational health evaluation that was addressed to a named official on a specified date. The Applicant’s averments that he repeatedly raised the matter over a four-year period are insufficient. He has not precisely identified any occasion when he raised the matter in his individual capacity as a staff member, with whom, where, and to what effect. He has also not shown that the Administration failed to take action on any such request in the 60 days leading up to 23 November 2021 when he filed the second request for management evaluation.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Lago
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type