UNDT/2024/024, Marchetti
The Applicant’s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.
The Applicant contests the “[d]ecision not to grant [her] request under staff rule 3.17 for increase of step”.
Under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal, the notification of the contested decision occurs when the staff member receives the decision in writing (see, for instance, Manco 2013-UNAT-342, para. 20, and Seyfollahzadeh 2016-UNAT-620, para. 26). The Appeals Tribunal has also “consistently held that the reiteration of an original administrative decision, if repeatedly questioned by a staff member, does not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines; rather time starts to run from the date on which the original decision was made” (see, Staedler 2015-UNAT-546, para. 46, and similarly in, for instance, Aliko 2015-UNAT-539, Kazazi 2015-UNAT-557, Thambiah 2013-UNAT-385, Cooke 2012-UNAT-275, Sethia 2010-UNAT-079, and Shayoun 2021-UNAT-1149).