�山����

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had been notified of his placement on special leave without pay in August 2018 and he requested for management evaluation on 6 July 2019, almost a year after the contested decision was communicated to him. The request fell way out of the 60-day deadline. The application was accordingly dismissed as not receivable.

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2) Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

Having reviewed the motion, the Tribunal found that it raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction which it addressed sua sponte and found the application not receivable ratione materiae. The application did not fall under any of the stipulated exceptions to obtaining a management evaluation as a first step to invoking the powers of the internal justice system.

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1)Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2)Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3)Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4)The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in this case was clearly not based on direct organisational authority and it concerned an area protected from employer interference, the internal affairs of a Staff Union. It did not produce a sufficiently direct legal consequence to the legal order of the Applicant as a staff member.

The facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established because the Applicant rendered himself publicly drunk over several hours, embroiled in a bar fight, was twice detained by the local police, went out to a bar after curfew drove a �山����vehicle while he was legally drunk based on MINUSCA’s zero tolerance policy refused to stop and exit the �山����vehicle when signaled by MINUSCA Security Officers, including his superior drove in a dangerous manner. The established facts legally amounted to misconduct because the Applicant’s actions, which included public drunkness, becoming...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant identified the contested decision as “misconduct allegations” made against her. It was clear that the Administration was yet to take a decision whether or not to discipline her. Allegations of misconduct are only a prefatory act, from which no direct consequences stem for the terms of the Applicant’s employment. Accordingly, the application was found not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision and it was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the facts arose from the Applicant’s former employment relationship with UNHCR. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application to be receivable.

On the first issue of placing of the note on the Applicant’s personnel file, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not dispute that the Respondent complied with ST/AI/292 which governs placement of adverse materials on personnel files. The Applicant conceded that the Respondent acted within the law. The Applicant also provided his comments on the note. On that basis, the application on the first issue was found not receivable as it did not disclose any administrative decision that had any direct legal consequences on the Applicant’s contract or terms of his employment. On the second issue...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager’s actions has been rebutted and that...