�山����

The Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review or supervise internal union affairs and has no competence to substitute, review or enforce any of the Arbitration Committee decisions. The Applicant’s claim regarding the provision of the names of eligible voters to polling officers as referred to in the 4 January 2017 email broadcast is not receivable under art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. The Appeals Tribunal has held that the key characteristics of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must be “a unilateral decision taken by the...

An applicant must identify, or define, a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The contested decision which may be reviewed by the Dispute Tribunal is not the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation, but the administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member. When deciding the scope of the case, the Tribunal is not limited to the parties’ own identification and definition of the contested administrative decision(s) and may, based on the submissions, seek...

The Applicant was notified of his non-selection on 7 December 2016. Yet, he requested management evaluation only on 11 April 2017.; Paragraph 119 of UNHCR’s Revised Policy and Procedures on Assignments (UNHCR/HCP/2015/2/Rev.1) provides that: “Staff members who have reasons to believe that they have not been given full and fair consideration for a particular decision, have; the right to be provided, upon request, with information on the process which led to that particular decision”. Its purpose is merely to establish a duty for the Administration to provide non-successful candidates, upon...

The Tribunal notes that though the application against the MEU’s decision to dismiss a request for management evaluation and claim of abuse of authority and harassment is different from the decision of the OIAI to dismiss a claim on abuse of authority and not to conduct an investigation, the decision which is being contested before the Tribunal is principally the same as the one which was contested at the MEU level, with only a few editorial differences.Therefore, the application is receivable.

UNDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. UNDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. UNDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...

UNAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

UNDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the UN, had no locus standi before UNDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, UNDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

UNDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. UNDT found no basis for the Applicant’s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. UNDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. UNDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

The present case concerns a rebuttal process that was initiated in accordance with section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. On 12 June 2017, the rebuttal panel issued its report recommending that the administration maintain the original overall rating of “partially meets performance expectations” and the Applicant’s placement on a performance improvement plan. In accordance with section 15.5 of ST/AI/2010/5, the performance rating of “partially meets performance expectations” became binding on the Applicant because of the rebuttal panel’s recommendation of 12 June 2017. In light of the foregoing, the...

Since the Applicant has not sought management evaluation of the alleged instruction for him to work for Warrior Security Limited Company or his allegations of harassment and retaliation in relation to the performance improvement plan, those claims are not properly before the Tribunal. Consequently, the decision to appoint another staff member at the same level as the Applicant’s supervisor and FRO is the only decision that the Tribunal can entertain. Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...