UNDT/2023/016, Kryvoruchko
Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent’s motion on receivability was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the application was receivable.
The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to prove that he was entitled to continue to receive six months New York post adjustment after his arrival in Entebbe, Uganda. The application was dismissed.
The Applicant contested: (1) the recovery of USD9,365.85 for four months of New York post adjustment for the period 1 August 2021 to 5 November 2021; and (2) the denial of his request to be paid the New York post adjustment (“NY/PA”) for six additional months from his arrival in Entebbe on 6 November 2021.
Staff rule 11.2(c) provides the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation and it states that a request for a management evaluation shall not be receivable by the Secretary-General unless it is sent within 60 calendar days from the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested.
To determine what a reviewable administrative decision, a reviewing Tribunal must also consider the language used in the communications and should not be unduly swayed by either or both parties’ characterization of the communications.